Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On March 24, 2025, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a wardship petition against M.W. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), alleging that on March 20, 2025, M.W. purchased or received a stolen motor vehicle and attempted to take a vehicle with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession. According to the police report, San Jose police officers responded to Silver Creek High School following a report of five juveniles in a silver Infiniti that had been reported stolen. A witness identified M.W. as the suspect sitting in the driver seat, and officers found items commonly used to steal cars inside the vehicle.
On April 24, 2025, M.W. was placed on informal supervision pursuant to section 654.2, under which he agreed, among other things, to make restitution as determined by the court. At the August 14, 2025 restitution setting hearing, the court ordered M.W. to pay 50 percent of the $3,087.76 in stipulated victim restitution, or $1,543.88, with the remaining half ordered to be paid by a co-offender, A.R., who was not a party to the appeal. On October 27, 2025, at an informal supervision compliance review hearing, the court found that M.W. had complied with the terms of his supervision, including full payment of the restitution, dismissed the matter, and ordered M.W.'s record sealed pursuant to section 786. M.W. timely appealed the August 14, 2025 restitution order, arguing the matter must be remanded because the trial court failed to apportion liability among all five minors who were arrested in connection with the alleged offenses.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal concluded the appeal must be dismissed because the restitution order was neither a judgment nor an order after judgment for which an appeal is authorized under section 800. The court explained that an order placing a minor on informal supervision under section 654.2 does not result in an appealable judgment, citing Ricki J. v. Superior Court (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 783, 789. Section 654.2 essentially places the adjudicatory process on hold in the hope the minor will successfully complete the program of supervision and thereby avoid a judgment altogether, meaning there is no judgment from which to appeal at that point. Both parties agreed the August 14, 2025 restitution order was not appealable under section 800.
The court also declined to exercise its discretion to treat the appeal as a petition for writ of mandate under Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 401. Considering the five Olson factors, the court found no unusual circumstances and noted the issue of appealability was not far from clear in advance given the Ricki J. decision issued in 2005. Furthermore, the record showed M.W. successfully completed informal supervision in October 2025, the section 602 wardship petition was dismissed, and his juvenile record was sealed. Under these circumstances, the court declined to treat M.W.'s notice of appeal as a petition for a writ of mandate and dismissed the appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A restitution order imposed as a condition of informal supervision under Welfare and Institutions Code section 654.2 is not an appealable judgment or order after judgment under section 800.
- An appellate court has discretion to treat a purported appeal as a petition for writ of mandate only under unusual circumstances, as described in Olson v. Cory.
- The fact that a minor successfully completed informal supervision, had the wardship petition dismissed, and had the juvenile record sealed weighs against finding unusual circumstances justifying writ treatment.
- The issue of appealability of informal supervision orders was not unclear given the 2005 decision in Ricki J. v. Superior Court.
- M.W.'s argument that the trial court failed to apportion restitution liability among all five arrested minors was not reached because the appeal was dismissed as nonappealable.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the established rule that orders made during informal supervision under section 654.2 are not appealable because no judgment has been entered. Minors who wish to challenge restitution orders imposed as a condition of informal supervision must seek other avenues of relief, as the appellate courts will not treat such appeals as writ petitions absent truly unusual circumstances. The case also illustrates that completion of informal supervision and sealing of the juvenile record can moot or undermine claims of substantial prejudice necessary to justify discretionary writ review.