In re Christopher L.

Filed 9/6/06 In re Christopher L. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. H. A. Staley, Judge.

Rachel Lederman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, David A. Rhodes and Jane N. Kirkland, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Christopher L. admitted misdemeanor vandalism, Penal Code section 594, subdivision (b)(2)(A), with damage of less than $400, and was ordered to continue on probation, spend 80 hours in the juvenile court work program, spend four days in juvenile hall, and pay victim restitution. After a contested restitution hearing, the trial court set restitution at $1,452.61. Appellant asserts the restitution award is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree and affirm.

FACTS

At approximately 1:40 a.m. on May 21, 2005, appellant threw a brick through a rear window of victim's van. Police patrolling the area noted the vandalism and contacted appellant, who admitted throwing the brick. Police were unable to contact the victim, Melinda Brocaille, and left a card on her door prompting her to call the police station regarding vandalism to her vehicle.

Later that morning Miss Brocaille contacted the police and learned of the incident. However, because of conflicting schedules, Miss Brocaille was not able to view the police report of the vandalism until June 13. Upon reading the police report she indicated to officers that the report was incomplete in that it did not list body damage caused by appellant to the rear of her van. The officer present conceded that they missed the additional damage because it had been dark when they initially examined the victim's van.

On September 22, 2005, the court awarded the victim $1,452.61 in restitution, the cost of repairing both the broken window and the body damage to the rear of the van. Appellant requested a contested restitution hearing. At the hearing, Miss Brocaille testified that damage to both the window and rear of her van happened at the same time. She also submitted written estimates showing that repair cost for the window was $371.38 and that repair cost for the body damage to the rear of her van was $1,081.23. Timothy Walden, appellant's friend, testified he saw appellant throw a single brick at the van and nothing else. The court again set restitution at $1,452.61.

DISCUSSION

Appellant contests the juvenile court's restitution order requiring him to pay $1,452.61 and asks that the award be reduced to $371.38, the cost of fixing only the broken window. He asserts that the restitution awarded is not supported by substantial evidence because there is no evidence that he caused the body damage to the rear of the van and because he only admitted to causing less than $400 in damage.

We review restitution orders for abuse of discretion. The trial court is vested with broad discretion in setting the amount of restitution. (In re Brittany L. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1381.) â€