Filed 8/3/10
CERTIFIED
FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*
IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT
(Yolo)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
LEROY STANLEY,
Defendant and Appellant.
C063661
(Super.
Ct. No.
09-3110)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court
of Yolo County,
Paul K. Richardson, Judge. Affirmed.
Robert
Navarro, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund
G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, and Jeffrey D. Firestone, Deputy Attorney
General, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
We here decide how
to calculate a victim's property damages for purposes of a victim restitution order. When a criminal damages a victim's vehicle,
we conclude the trial court may in its discretion award the victim the cost of
repairing the vehicle, even if that amount exceeds the replacement value of the
vehicle. In doing so, we agree with
(Dina V.) and disagree with
1622 (Yanez).
BACKGROUND
Defendant Leroy
Stanley pled no contest to felony vandalism of Patricia Short-Lyster's truck,
in exchange for a 16-month prison sentence, the dismissal of other charges, and
the prosecutor's promise not to file other charges. Short-Lyster and defendant were not
acquainted.
The facts show
that on July 2, 2009, defendant
damaged Stoddard's pickup truck, a 1975 Dodge Adventurer, for which she paid
$950, a year and a half earlier. When
purchased, the truck was in excellent condition. Stoddard's father, a former auto mechanic, looked at the truck and
advised her to buy it. After defendant
vandalized it, Stoddard obtained a body shop estimate to fix it, amounting to
$2,812.94.
The trial court
sentenced defendant to a stipulated term of 16 months in state prison.
Over defendant's
objection that it would give the victim a windfall, the trial court ordered
restitution in the amount of the repairs, $2,812.94.
Defendant timely
appealed, specifying a challenge to the restitution amount.
DISCUSSION
I
Victim Restitution
Defendant contends
the matter must be remanded for the trial court to reconsider the restitution
award, because it was unreasonable to award the victim nearly three times the
cost of her truck as restitution. We disagree.
â€
| Description | We here decide how to calculate a victim's property damages for purposes of a victim restitution order. When a criminal damages a victim's vehicle, we conclude the trial court may in its discretion award the victim the cost of repairing the vehicle, even if that amount exceeds the replacement value of the vehicle. In doing so, we agree with In re Dina V. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 486 (Dina V.) and disagree with People v. Yanez (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1622 (Yanez). |
| Rating |
