Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Appeal from the 304th Judicial District Court Dallas County,
Texas Trial Court Cause No. JD-18-00890-W.
Justices Myers, Osborne, and Nowell.
child between the ages of 10 and 17, entered a plea of true
to a charge of criminal mischief under Texas Penal Code
section 28.03, and the trial court declared L.L. to be a
child engaged in delinquent conduct under section 51.03 of
the juvenile justice code. After a disposition hearing, the trial
court ordered L.L. and her mother to pay restitution fees of
$3, 061.91 as a result of L.L.'s criminal mischief. In
two issues, L.L. challenges the trial court's judgment of
disposition. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
and Enohelia Bustos were involved in a traffic accident.
After the collision, L.L. got out of her car and caused
further damage to Enohelia's vehicle. The Dallas County
District Attorney's Office, counsel for the State of
Texas, filed a "Petition Regarding Child Engaged in
Delinquent Conduct" against L.L. An Associate Judge made
findings and recommendations including restitution in the
amount of $3, 061.91 for damages to the car resulting from
the vandalism. The case proceeded to a bench trial.
entered a plea of true to the criminal mischief charge, and
the trial court heard evidence on the disputed issue of
restitution. Enohelia's husband Reuben and L.L.
testified. Reuben explained that he obtained estimates for
repair of Enohelia's car, requesting separate figures for
the damage caused by the collision itself and the damage
caused by L.L. after the collision. He testified that he
obtained several estimates and receipts and submitted them to
the victim services department in connection with the case.
He explained that although Enohelia had originally sought $7,
906 in restitution, she was now seeking $3, 061.91 as a
result of L.L.'s vandalism, having separated and
subtracted the damages from the collision. He testified:
Q. Okay. If you could just kind of tell the Court what was
damaged in the vandalism only. Not the car accident, but what
happened in the vandalism only to the vehicle?
A. Okay. The vehicle, the driver's side mirror got
broken. They tried to-they pulled the-
MS. JACOBSON: Objection. Your Honor, I'm not sure he has
personal knowledge about which is the vandalism versus-
. . . -the crash.
THE COURT: Hold on. Go ahead. Your response.
Q (By Ms. Valdez) You-when the crash happened you responded
straight to the scene immediately where your wife was?
A. That's correct. I got there, like, 10 minutes after
'cause I work ...