California Legal Brief

The Rule of In re Christian V. is that a juvenile case becomes final for Estrada retroactivity purposes when the time to appeal the dispositional order expires or direct review is exhausted, regardless of whether the minor remains on probation or whether subsequent post-judgment orders are entered, under circumstances where the minor did not timely appeal the original dispositional order.

Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County.

Defendant Appellant was Christian V. — a minor who admitted to vandalism and was ordered to pay joint and several restitution with his co-offender.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — the prosecuting entity seeking to enforce the original restitution order.

The suit sounded in juvenile delinquency proceedings. No cross-claims were described.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that The People filed a petition alleging Christian V. committed vandalism of property worth more than $400, which Minor admitted. The juvenile court ordered Minor to pay victim restitution jointly and severally with his parents and co-offender on October 23, 2024. After a January 1, 2025 amendment to Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 removed courts' ability to order joint and several liability among co-offenders, Minor requested the court make him solely liable for one-half of the victim restitution.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied Minor's request to divide the restitution in half and confirmed the previous joint and several restitution order, ruling that the case was final before the new law took effect and thus the amendment could not apply retroactively.

The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether Minor's case was final for purposes of Estrada retroactivity analysis when the amendment to section 730.6 became effective on January 1, 2025.

The Appellate Court held that Minor's case became final when he failed to appeal the September 9, 2024 dispositional order, and subsequent post-judgment orders regarding restitution enforcement did not render the case non-final for Estrada purposes, distinguishing juvenile probation from adult criminal probation where finality depends on completion of probationary proceedings.

The case is inapplicable when the minor timely appealed the original dispositional order, when dealing with adult criminal cases involving probation, or when the court has not yet issued a dispositional order in juvenile proceedings.

The case leaves open whether the amendment to section 730.6 would apply retroactively under Estrada in cases that are not yet final, and whether other types of post-dispositional proceedings might affect finality determinations in juvenile cases.