Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Solano County Super. Ct. No. VCR181532
STEIN, Acting P. J.
Lawrence Gore, defendant, pleaded no contest to vandalism causing damage in excess of $400. (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a).) Defendant also admitted allegations of a prior strike conviction (§ 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)) and three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced him to nine years in prison. Following a contested restitution hearing, the court also ordered defendant to pay the victim restitution in the amount of $3,211.43.
All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
On appeal, defendant contends that the court abused its discretion in determining the amount of the restitution.
Facts
At the restitution hearing, the victim testified that defendant had broken two windows of her van, and that she paid $500 to have them replaced. She provided the court with a copy of the estimate. Defendant also caused damage to the doors, paint and body of the vehicle. She testified that before defendant damaged it, the body of her vehicle had been in perfect condition, except for a small scratch. She submitted an estimate from an auto body shop that it would cost $2,632.63 to repair the damage. Defendant had also kicked in the front door of her house. The victim had two estimates to repair the door, one in the amount of $490, the other for $443.
Defendant testified that there was preexisting damage to the van. He testified that one of the windows did not work and was “always down,” that the body of the vehicle was nicked and dented, and the paint was corroded and had many scratches. There was also a white transfer mark on the rear of the vehicle.
The court stated that it would award $500 for the window repair, and $490 for the repair of the front door. With respect to the auto body shop estimate in the total amount of $2,632.43, the court reduced by half the line item of $822.40 for refinishing or painting the body. The total amount awarded was $3,211.43.
Analysis
Defendant contends that the court abused its discretion in determining the amount of restitution because it required him to pay for preexisting damage, consisting of the repair of a window that was already inoperable, and requiring him to pay a disproportionate amount of the estimate for repainting, in light of his testimony that the body had many nicks and corroded paint prior to the incident.
The trial court has broad discretion in setting the amount of restitution, and may use any rational method of fixing the amount, as long as it is reasonably calculated to make the victim whole. (People v. Baker (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 463, 470.) “When there is a factual and rational basis for the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court, no abuse of discretion will be found by the reviewing court.” (People v. Dalvito (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 557, 562.)
The court based its calculation of the amount of restitution upon estimates provided by the victim, and her testimony. Assuming arguendo that it credited defendant’s testimony that one of the windows was inoperable and “always down” before the incident, nothing in the record supports defendant’s assertion that the amount of restitution includes payment to restore the operation of that window. He acknowledged that he broke two of the windows, and the victim testified that she paid $500 dollars to replace “the glass part” of two broken windows. As for the amount for refinishing and paint, the victim and defendant gave conflicting testimony about the condition of the body before defendant damaged it. The victim claimed it was in nearly perfect condition, whereas defendant testified it was covered with dings, scratches, and corroded paint. The court could rationally conclude that the actual condition of the vehicle was somewhere in between these two extremes. It therefore reduced the line item estimate for refinishing the body from $822.40 to $411.20. We conclude that the court used a rational method to account for the preexisting condition of the vehicle, and that it had a rational and factual basis for the amount of restitution it awarded.
Conclusion
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: SWAGER, J., MARGULIES, J.