Opinion
E079846
08-23-2023
In re T.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. T.D., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
David R. Greifinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin Urbanski, Laura Baggett and Juliet W. Park, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, No. J293503 Tony Raphael, Judge. Affirmed.
David R. Greifinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin Urbanski, Laura Baggett and Juliet W. Park, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
FIELDS J.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant T.D. (minor) appeals from a victim restitution order, arguing that it is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The parties stipulated that the police reports provided the factual basis for the plea. The police reports were summarized in the probation report. This brief factual background is taken from the probation report.
On June 13, 2022, a police officer ran a records check on a Lexus RX450H. The check revealed that the vehicle was reported as stolen in Los Angeles County. The driver was identified as then 17-year-old minor. Three passengers were also inside the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle (the victim) was contacted, and she stated she did not give anyone permission to take or drive her car. She did not know minor and wanted him arrested for driving her car without permission.
Minor was 17 years old at the time of the offense but has since turned 18. For the sake of consistency, this opinion will refer to him as a minor.
On June 15, 2022, the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition, alleging that minor received stolen property. (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a), count 1.) A juvenile court subsequently reduced count 1 to a misdemeanor, pursuant to the People's motion, and minor admitted the allegation. The court did not declare minor to be a ward of the court, but placed him in the custody of his father on specified terms of non-wardship probation, including paying victim restitution. It then set a restitution hearing for July 27, 2022.
All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
On July 22, 2022, the probation department submitted a memorandum to the court detailing the victim's request for restitution, which totaled $6,168.78. However, on August 31, 2022, probation filed a memorandum amending the restitution total, based on the victim's statement that she no longer required one of the items previously listed, and her insurance covered the loss of some of the other items. The updated request totaled $4,368.78. The victim's revised itemized list consisted of the following:
1. Marc Jacobs purse: $260.00;
2. Emergency cash left in car: $60.00;
3. Cash in purse: $250.00;
4. Two birth certificates: $60.00;
5. Jansport backpack with first response items: $200.00;
6. iPad: $250.00;
7. Ray-Ban sunglasses: $250.00;
8. Starbucks gift cards: $80.00;
9. Portable charger: $50.00;
10. Softball backpack: $70.00;
11. Softball face mask: $60.00;
12. Softball bat Rawlings Mantra: $440.00;
13. Softball bat Easton Ghost: $440.00;
14. Softball cleats: $110.00;
15. Ice chest: $60.00;
16. Softball glove: $130.00;
17. GoPro: $450.00;
18. GoPro battery: $25.00;
19. GoPro case: $20.00;
20. GoPro charging cable: $20.00;
21. Shoulder sling with cold compress: $80.00;
22. Softball helmet: $70.00;
23. Softball visor: $25.00;
24. Lexus spare tire: $200.00; 25. Gas: $94.00;
26. Cleaned car to eliminate marijuana odor: $90.00;
The gas and car cleaning items were expenses the victim incurred after receiving her vehicle back.
27. Getting car out of impound: $341.00;
28. Missed total of three hours of work: $183.78.
On July 27, 2022, the court held an attorneys-only hearing and noted that it had received the probation department's restitution memorandum. Minor wished to contest the amount of restitution, and the court set a contested restitution hearing.
The court held the restitution hearing on September 20, 2022. The court stated that it had the probation department memorandum and statement from the victim and that such items were sufficient for establishing a prima facie showing of the amount of loss. Defense counsel cited In re Travis J. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 187 (Travis J.), which the court stated it had reviewed. The court discussed the holding of that case, as well as the process of claiming victim restitution. It then cited People v. Gemelli (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1539 (Gemelli), which held that the burden is on the party seeking restitution to provide an adequate factual basis for the claim. Once a prima facie showing has been made, the burden shifts to the minor to disprove the losses claimed. The court stated it was required to use a rational method to determine the amount of restitution to make the victim whole, and the question was whether there was sufficient evidence to support the amounts claimed. The court found the victim had made a prima facie case, based on the statement and amounts she gave to the probation department.
Defense counsel argued that the victim's statement was insufficient, and the victim needed to provide supporting documentation or testimony before the burden shifted to minor. After some discussion, the court stated, "[R]equiring the victim of a crime to provide more than a statement of loss for purposes of establishing a prima facie case of loss is inconsistent with the public policy and the Constitutional requirements the victim of a crime be made whole." It then stated that minor requested the restitution hearing, and since a prima facie case had been made, he could present evidence to show the amounts requested were excessive or unfounded; however, he failed to do so. The court then found that based on Gemelli, the victim's statement to the probation officer was sufficient to make a prima facie case of loss, and the statement had not been rebutted by minor. Thus, the court ordered victim restitution in the amount of $4,368.78.
DISCUSSION
The Juvenile Court Properly Awarded Victim Restitution
Minor argues the restitution order should be reversed because it was not supported by substantial evidence. He acknowledges that the juvenile court followed Gemelli, but argues that this court should follow the Travis J. line of cases that require more than just the victim's statement to establish a prima facie showing of loss. He asserts that restitution claims should be supported by documentation, sworn testimony, or affidavit. We conclude that the juvenile court properly found that the victim's list of claimed losses, as reported by the probation officer, was sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of economic losses in the amount of $4,368.78 incurred as a result of minor's conduct.
A. Relevant Law
"Section 730.6 governs restitution in cases where a minor is adjudicated a ward of the court pursuant to section 602. In pertinent part, that statute provides: '(a)(1) It is the intent of the Legislature that a victim of conduct for which a minor is found to be a person described in Section 602 who incurs any economic loss as a result of the minor's conduct shall receive restitution directly from that minor. [¶] (2) [T]he court shall order the minor to pay, in addition to any other penalty provided or imposed under the law . . . the following: [¶] . . . [¶] (B) Restitution to the victim or victims, if any, in accordance with subdivision (h).' In relevant part, section 730.6, subdivision (h) provides: 'A restitution order pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), to the extent possible, shall identify . . . the amount of each victim's loss to which it pertains, and shall be of a dollar amount sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for all determined economic losses incurred as the result of the minor's conduct for which the minor was found to be a person described in Section 602, including all of the following: [¶] (1) Full or partial payment of 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.'" (In re Johnny M. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1131-1132, (Johnny M.).)
"A victim's restitution right is to be broadly and liberally construed." (People v. Mearns (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 493, 500.) "[W]e observe that section 730.6 parallels Penal Code section 1202.4, which governs adult restitution." (Johnny M., supra, 100 Cal.App.4th at p. 1132, fn. omitted; see Luis M v. Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 300, 304.)
"A restitution order is reviewed for abuse of discretion and will not be reversed unless it is arbitrary or capricious. [Citation.] No abuse of discretion will be found where there is a rational and factual basis for the amount of restitution ordered.' "[T]he standard of proof at a restitution hearing is by a preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.'" [Citation.] Section 1202.4 does not, by its terms, require any particular kind of proof. However, the trial court is entitled to consider the probation report, and, as prima facie evidence of loss, may accept a property owner's statement made in the probation report about the value of stolen or damaged property. [Citation.] Once the victim makes a prima facie showing of economic losses incurred as a result of the defendant's criminal acts, the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove the amount of losses claimed by the victim. [Citation.] The defendant has the burden of rebutting the victim's statement of losses, and to do so, may submit evidence to prove the amount claimed exceeds the repair or replacement cost of damaged or stolen property." (Gemelli, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1542-1543; see People v. Superior Court (Lauren M.) (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1221, 1226.)
Although a restitution order may be challenged on the ground that no substantial evidence supports the order, "[i]n reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the' "power of the appellate court begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted," to support the trial court's findings.' [Citation.] . . . 'If the circumstances reasonably justify the [trial court's] findings,' the judgment may not be overturned when the circumstances might also reasonably support a contrary finding. [Citation.] We do not reweigh or reinterpret the evidence; rather, we determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the inference drawn by the trier of fact." (People v. Baker (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 463, 468469.)
B. There Was a Rational and Factual Basis for the Restitution Order
Minor contends the court erred in awarding $4,368.78 in victim restitution because the award was not supported by substance evidence. He asserts that this court should reverse the restitution order and remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing and require the victim to support her claim with documentation, sworn testimony or affidavit. However, the victim restitution statute "does not, by its terms, require any particular kind of proof." (Gemelli, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at p. 1543; see § 730.6.; see also People v. Lehman (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 795, 803 ["[t]he prosecution was not required to present victim testimony or affidavits or expert declarations in connection with the restitution hearing"].) The court may accept as prima facie evidence of loss a property owner's statement made in the probation report about the value of damaged property. (Gemelli, at p. 1543.) Furthermore, "the probation report gives notice to the defendant of the recommended amount of restitution, and the hearing offers him the opportunity to rebut the amount before the court determines the amount. [Citation.] At the hearing, 'the defendant bears the burden of proving the victim's restitution estimate exceeds the replacement cost of the stolen property.'" (People v. Foster (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 939, 946, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in People v. Birkett (1999) 21 Cal.4th 226, 238-245.)
Here, the evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case for victim restitution. The victim provided a detailed list of items that were taken from her car and their replacement costs, other costs incurred, and wages lost due to missing work. Further, as the court noted, the victim recovered some of her losses through her insurance and subsequently decreased the amount of restitution requested. The court found her restitution claim credible. Thus, the statement by the victim, as reported in the probation officer's memorandum, provided a factual and rational basis for the court's order and was sufficient to support the victim's restitution claim. (See Gemelli, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at p. 1543.) Moreover, since the victim made a prima facie showing of loss, minor had "the burden of rebutting the victim's statement of losses" and "disprov[ing] the amount of loss[] claimed by the victim." (Ibid.) It is undisputed that minor had the opportunity to rebut the victim's claim but failed to do so.
Minor asks us to reverse the court's restitution order, based on the Travis J. line of cases, and require the victim to provide documentation or testimony to support her claim. However, generally," 'restitution awards are vested in the trial court's discretion and will be disturbed on appeal only where an abuse of discretion appears.'" (Travis J., supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 202.) "The court abuses its discretion when it acts contrary to law [citation] or fails to 'use a rational method that could reasonably be said to make the victim whole, and may not make an order which is arbitrary or capricious' [citation]." (In re Anthony M. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1016.) There was no abuse of discretion here since the juvenile court properly followed the law in Gemelli, and there was a rational and factual basis for the amount of restitution ordered by the court. (See Johnny M., supra, 100 Cal.App.4th at p. 1132.)
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's victim restitution order is affirmed.
We concur: RAMIREZ P. J. SLOUGH J.