In re Dina V.
Decision Date | 25 May 2007 |
Docket Number | No. A115702.,A115702. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | In re DINA V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Dina V., Defendant and Appellant. |
Rachel Lederman, for Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown Jr., Dane R. Gillette, Gerald A. Engler, Catherine A. Rivlin, Martin S. Kaye, San Francisco, for Respondent.
The minor Dina V. admitted an allegation that she took a vehicle without the owner's permission (Veh.Code, § 10851, subd. (a))1; she was placed on probation in her parents' home and ordered to complete 30 hours of community service. A restitution hearing was held and the minor was ordered to pay the victim restitution in the amount of $4,419.72, which represented the cost of repairing the victim's vehicle. The minor appeals, arguing that the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering an amount of restitution that exceeded the replacement value of the damaged car ($3,000). We disagree and affirm.
The underlying facts are not relevant to the determination of the sole issue presented by this appeal and therefore will not be discussed in detail. The legal issue presented is, simply stated, whether the appropriate amount of restitution is limited by the replacement value of the stolen vehicle. Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 states that in a juvenile case, (Italics added.) The question is whether the trial court has discretion to order the greater amount, when the cost to repair the stolen or damaged property exceeds the replacement cost.
The Fourth District previously answered this question in the negative, in the context of an adult criminal case. In People v. Yanez (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1622, 1624-1625, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, the defendant was convicted of receiving stolen property. The trial court awarded over $7,300 in restitution pursuant to former Penal Code section 1203.04, subd. (d), based upon the cost of repairing the victim's stolen vehicle, despite undisputed evidence that the maximum value of the vehicle prior to its being stolen was $4,100.2 The court of appeal reversed, holding that the civil measure of damages, limited to the lesser of the cost of repair or the cost of replacement, should have been applied to determine the amount of restitution, if it resulted in full compensation to the victim. (Yanez, supra, 38 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1626-1627, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 1.)
Respondent contends that Yanez was wrongly decided, as it "interprets victim restitution too stingily, and too rigidly applies civil law." Since the statutory language of both the Penal Code and the Welfare and Institutions Code specifically permits restitution to be ordered in the amount of the cost of repair, and since victim restitution is not limited to the amount of damages recoverable in a civil action (citing In re Brittany L. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1381, 1391-1392, 122 Cal. Rptr,2d 376), respondent argues, restitution should not be limited to replacement cost. We agree.
Section 730.6 specifically defines the value of stolen or damaged property, for the purposes of restitution, to either the replacement value or the actual cost of repair. Judges have broad discretion in fixing the amount of restitution, and "the court may use any rational method of fixing the amount of restitution, provided it is reasonably calculated to make the victim whole, and provided it is consistent with the purpose of rehabilitation." (In re Brittany L., supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1391-1392, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 376, fn. omitted.) As the court concluded in Brittany L., " " (Id. at p. 1391, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 376.)
Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot say that the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering an amount of restitution sufficient to pay the costs of repair of the victim's vehicle. This amount of restitution was specifically authorized by statute. To limit the amount of restitution to the replacement cost, because that would be the manner of determining damages in a civil case, is neither required nor logical. As respond...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Alexander A.
......The deputy district attorney stated without objection that Borja wanted to keep the car. The juvenile court ordered Alexander to pay Borja restitution of $8,219.18 and found Alexander's parents jointly and severally liable in that amount. *852 Citing In re Dina V. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 486, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 862 ( Dina V. ), the court stated the restitution amount was reasonable because the victim should not have to go to the trouble of looking for a similar vehicle in precrime condition. The court found that ordering Alexander to pay the cost of ......
-
The People v. B.H
...... capricious, 'there is no requirement the restitution order be limited to the exact amount of the loss in which the defendant is actually found culpable, nor is there any requirement the order reflect the amount of damages that might be recoverable in a civil action..' [Citation.]" ' " (In re Dina V. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 486, 489-490, quoting from In re Brittany L., supra, 99 Cal.App.4th 1381, 1391.) Defendant protests that the court erred by computing the value of the Mercedes based on the insurance company's repair estimate of $28,065, rather the lower "Kelly Blue Book value of about ......
-
In re Laurance S.
......Compare In re Dina V., 151 Cal.App.4th 486, 59 Cal. Rptr.3d 862 (2007). We have considered appellants' remaining arguments made in connection with their assignments of error, and we conclude they are without merit. CONCLUSION. We conclude that the restitution orders entered under § ......
- In re Jessica C.
-
Restitution
...value. Thus, an order for $4,400.00 of repairs was affirmed even though replacement value was only $3,000.00. In re Dina V (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 486. Cf. People v. Yanez (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1622. §14:34.7 Original Parts v. Recycled Parts Although the cost of repairing a damaged vehicle ......
-
Table of cases
...§7:66.4 In re Dennis B. (1976) 18 Cal.3d 687, §2:11.3 In re Devon T. (Md.Ct.App. 1991) 584 A.2d 1287, Appendix E In re Dina V . (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 486, §§14:34, 14:34.6, 14:49.2 In re Doe Children, 402 NYS2d 958 (N.Y., 1978), §9:35.8 In re Dwayne G., 411 NYS2d 180 (N.Y., 1978), §9:35.8 ......