From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Smith

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Apr 24, 2009
No. D053652 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2009)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROSEMARY SMITH, Defendant and Appellant. D053652 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division April 24, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCN242944, Daniel B. Goldstein, Judge.

BENKE, J.

Rosemary Smith pleaded guilty to vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a), (b)(1); count 1) as a misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Smith to three years' summary probation and ordered Smith to pay victim restitution in the amount of $2,001.55 as a term of probation.

Statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Smith appeals, contending the court erred by ordering she pay the cost of repairing the property where the repair amount exceeded the fair market replacement cost of the property. We affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On the night of March 13, 2008, Richard Freeman saw Smith breaking the front windshield wipers off of Overton Lewis's car. Freeman confronted Smith and noticed that in addition to the windshield wipers having been broken off, the front and side windows of the car had been badly scratched with an object.

At the restitution hearing, the court received in evidence an estimate that included the cost to repair the scratched window and to replace the windshield wipers. The repairs totaled $2,001.55. The Kelly Bluebook value of the vehicle in fair condition with 91,000 miles was $875. At the time of the incident, the car's odometer registered 94,000 miles.

The court heard arguments from counsel concerning the issue of whether Lewis should be awarded restitution in the Bluebook value of the car at $875 or the repair cost totaling $2,001.55. The court, after considering the evidence, ordered Smith to pay the repair costs of the car in the amount of $2,001.55. The court ordered the restitution be paid in monthly payments of $25.00.

DISCUSSION

Smith contends the court abused its discretion by ordering her to pay the cost of repairing Lewis's car instead of the car's market value.

A

Article I, section 28 of the California Constitution provides the basic framework for the criminal restitution statutes. This constitutional provision states: "It is the unequivocal intention of the People of the State of California that all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to... restitution from the persons convicted of the crimes for losses they suffer. [¶] Restitution shall be ordered from the convicted wrongdoer in every case, regardless of the sentence or disposition imposed, in which a crime victim suffers a loss." (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b).)

"In granting probation, courts have broad discretion to impose conditions to foster rehabilitation and to protect public safety...." (People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120-1121; § 1203.1.) " 'Restitution is an effective rehabilitative penalty because it forces the defendant to confront, in concrete terms, the harm his actions have caused.' " (People v. Carbajal, supra, at p. 1124.) "In addition, while it is still recognized that orders of restitution have rehabilitative purposes, it is now also recognized that such orders have the additional important purpose of preventing the victims of crimes from suffering economic loss." (In re I.M. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1195, 1209; see also § 1202.4, subd. (a)(1).)

A reviewing court may not invalidate a restitution order imposed as a condition of probation unless it, "(1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to the conduct which is not itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality." (People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486.) Certain limitations in restitution that arise in prison cases under section 1202.4 do not apply in probation cases. (People v. Woods (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1049-1051.) Courts have more leeway in selecting appropriate restitution as a condition of probation than courts have in a prison case. (People v. Rubics (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 452, 459.)

Section 1202.4 provides, "It is the intent of the Legislature that a victim of crime who incurs any economic loss as a result of the commission of a crime shall receive restitution directly from any defendant convicted of that crime." (§ 1202.4, subd. (a)(1).) The restitution is "[t]o the extent possible" to be "a dollar amount that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant's criminal conduct, including, but not limited to, all of the following: [¶]....[¶] Full or partial payment for the value of stolen or damaged property. The value of stolen or damaged property shall be the replacement cost of like property, or the actual cost of repairing the property when repair is possible." (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)(3)(A).)

In light of the clear intent of the restitution provisions to award full restitution to crime victims, " '[a] victim's restitution right is to be broadly and liberally construed.' " (In re Johnny M. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1132.) " ' "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." ' " (Ibid.; People v. Carbajal, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1125.) "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." (Id. at p. 1121.)

B

The court here received in evidence an estimate showing the cost to repair Lewis's car to be $2,001.55. The court also received the Kelly Bluebook value of the car at $875. Based on these two estimates, it was reasonable for the court to find that a restitution order in the fair market value amount of $875 would not be sufficient enough to repair Lewis's car because, as the court stated, it would only give Lewis the ability to repair half of his car. The court further reasoned that providing Lewis with a restitution amount covering the cost of repair would place Lewis in the same economic status he was in before the vandalism took place. The trial court has broad discretion in choosing a rational method of calculation to determine the amount of the economic loss suffered by a victim. The goal of direct restitution is to restore the victim to "the economic status quo." (People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 663-664, 658.) The cost of repair calculation used in this case by the court is a rational method of calculation resulting in making Lewis whole. (See People v. Ortiz (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 791, 796.) The trial court did not abuse its discretion.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J., McDONALD, J.


Summaries of

People v. Smith

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Apr 24, 2009
No. D053652 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2009)
Case details for

People v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROSEMARY SMITH, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

Date published: Apr 24, 2009

Citations

No. D053652 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2009)