Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Super. Ct. No. RIJ113773, Charles J. Koosed, Judge.
Maureen M. Bodo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, James D. Dutton and Michael T. Murphy, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ, P. J.
Defendant and appellant C.C. (minor) admitted that on or about November 8, 2008, he took a vehicle without the consent of the owner. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) Minor contends there was insufficient evidence to support the portion of the restitution award for labor and repair costs related to the vehicle’s visor, hood, door lock, steering column, and dashboard air vent. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Minor used a shaved key to enter and drive the vehicle. He testified that he did not damage anything, did not remove the radio, did not remove covers to the steering column, and did not hot-wire the vehicle. While minor did engage in a high-speed chase, he testified that he did not run into any vehicles or objects when he took the car or during the chase.
A sheriff’s deputy testified that he joined in pursuing a vehicle containing occupants who reportedly had been stealing stereos from other vehicles at a mall. Minor was driving the pursued vehicle at speeds of “up to 90 on the freeway” and “45 to 60” on surface streets. The minor drove the vehicle twice over the curb and onto dirt to “cut the corner.” The deputy did not see the vehicle hit anything during the pursuit. “At some point during the pursuit, a screwdriver was tossed out of the vehicle.” The vehicle spun to a sudden stop after minor turned into a cul de sac. At the time the pursuit ended, the deputy did not notice any damage to the inside or outside of the vehicle; however, he was focusing on evidence of stolen car stereos at the time.
When the deputy approached the vehicle, the engine was still running. The keys were not in the ignition; however, a miscellaneous set of keys was found on a key ring in the vehicle. The deputy testified that typically car thieves use a hot-wire method, or they bypass the ignition lock by removing a certain car part, which permits a car to “be started with any screwdriver or similar key or flat object.” The deputy reviewed exhibits consisting of photographs taken of the vehicle after the pursuit ended. One photograph showed the hood on the driver’s side slightly raised. Another photograph showed that the plastic on the bottom of the steering wheel column had been pulled away, “revealing the metal underneath and the ignition components.” A third photograph showed “a gash or crack” in the air conditioning vent above the stereo. Two stereos were also found in the vehicle. The deputy’s patrol vehicle sustained damage to its rear bumper. The deputy attributed this damage to the portion of the pursuit that went over dirt, “because of how rough it was going through those sections. The car was bouncing pretty violently going through. It could have easily bottomed out.”
A mechanic testified, through an interpreter, that he was called out to an impound lot in November 2008, because the vehicle would not start. He could not remember the exact date he had seen the vehicle but the photographic exhibits he reviewed had a date stamp of “12/06/2008.” The vehicle would not start because the ignition switch was pulled out of position. The key would turn with difficulty, which was ascribed to damage to the cylinder. It was possible that a shaved key could have caused the damage and could also have been capable of starting the car. This would have been because “sometimes those shaved keys are bigger than the regular key, so when you turn it on... and you force it, that’s when the points break.” The damage to the air vent was present both when he first visited the vehicle at the impound lot and when he wrote a repair estimate. A sun visor was also missing, and the hood had a bend in it. The mechanic had worked on the car eight months prior; he did not remember if there was damage to the hood at that time, but had been asked to examine why an “ignition light” was on all the time.
Stipulated testimony was read into the record from the woman who possessed the vehicle at the time it was stolen and from her boyfriend. The car was dropped off with the woman about an hour prior to her discovering it missing. At the time it was dropped off, the vehicle “appeared to be running fine, ” the woman “did not notice any body damage, ” and the woman was not aware of anything “mechanically or cosmetically wrong with the vehicle.” When she picked up the vehicle at the impound lot, she “noticed the stereo had been pulled out of the dashboard, that there was damage to the dashboard above the air vent, ” “there were wires sticking out of the ignition column, ” and “the passenger side sun visor was missing.”
The boyfriend went with the woman to pick up the vehicle from the impound lot. When he saw the vehicle he “noticed the hood was bent.” “[W]hen he looked inside the car, [he] noticed that part of the steering column was unscrewed and hanging out, that the windshield wiper switch on the steering column was broken, and that the passenger side sun visor was gone.” He “also noticed the stereo face had been pulled out and there [was] a dent in the dashboard above the air vent where someone had pried the paneling off in order to try to get the stereo out.” He “discovered that the CD player still worked but the radio no longer worked.” Both the woman and her boyfriend stated that the photographs with the “12/06/2008” time stamp accurately and fairly depicted the condition of the vehicle at the time it was picked up from the impound lot.
Two repair estimates, including costs for the visor, hood, door lock, steering column, and dashboard vent area, were admitted. After taking the matter under submission, the juvenile court set the restitution award for repairs at the amount of the lower estimate, $2,728.06.
DISCUSSION
Minor contends there was insufficient evidence to support the portion of the restitution award for labor and repair costs related to the vehicle’s visor, hood, door lock, steering column, and dashboard air vent. The People contend the evidence was sufficient and that, once a claim was made, it was minor’s burden to convince the juvenile court otherwise. We agree with the People.
“ ‘In juvenile cases, as in other areas of the law, the power of an appellate court asked to assess the sufficiency of the evidence begins and ends with a determination as to whether or not there is any substantial evidence, whether or not contradicted, which will support the conclusion of the trier of fact. All conflicts must be resolved in favor of the respondent and all legitimate inferences indulged in to uphold the verdict, if possible.’ [Citation.] ‘ “If the evidence so viewed is sufficient as a matter of law, the judgment must be affirmed....” ’ [Citation.]” (In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 820.) In deciding whether substantial evidence supports the decision of the trier of fact, we do not resolve issues of credibility or evidentiary conflicts. (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181.)
Minor testified that he used a shaved key to break into and steal the car. The mechanic’s testimony that a shaved key could damage the ignition cylinder provided substantial evidence supporting the inference that the shaved key damaged both the ignition and the door lock. The stolen stereos and the disposal of the screwdriver during the chase provided substantial evidence supporting the inference that the damage to the dashboard air vent above the stereo was caused by the dash being used as the fulcrum for the screwdriver during an attempt to pry the stereo loose. The woman’s testimony that she did not notice any body damage prior to the theft was substantial evidence that the hood damage occurred during the theft and high-speed pursuit. The testimony of the woman and her boyfriend that they noticed the visor missing at the impound lot was substantial evidence from which it could be inferred that the visor went missing during the period minor controlled the car.
To the extent minor challenges the absence of more direct evidence, we note that the prima facie case was established merely by the showing that repairs were needed after the car had been stolen and, at that point, minor had the burden of disproving the amount of claimed losses. (People v. Gemelli (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1543 [Fourth Dist., Div. Two].) To the extent that minor relies on Gemelli for the proposition that a more detailed statement of loss was required, he is mistaken. In Gemelli, the probation officer requested receipts from the victim to support the claimed losses, but the victim provided only an itemized list of losses that the officer then attached to the report without attempting to verify any of the claimed amounts. (Id. at pp. 1541-1542.) We held that the inclusion of the victim’s unverified itemized statement of loss in the probation report established prima facie evidence of the loss. (Id. at p. 1543.) However, in Gemelli, we did not hold that such an itemized statement of loss in a probation report was necessary to establish a prima facie case. The repair estimates submitted in this case were superior to a mere statement of loss because the estimates indicate both the items for which restitution is being claimed and a basis for determining the cost of repairing the item. Accordingly, Gemelli is of no assistance to minor.
Because substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s restitution award, we affirm.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: HOLLENHORST J., RICHLI J.