Luis M. v. Superior Court
59 Cal. 4th 300
| Cal. | 2014Background
- Luis M., a minor, admitted felony vandalism for nine graffiti acts at six locations and was placed on probation with deferred entry of judgment; juvenile court ordered $3,881.88 restitution to the City of Lancaster.
- City witness relied on a 2006 city "cost model" averaging $431.32 per graffiti incident (based on 2006 abatement data) to compute restitution for 2011 incidents; no photographs or description tying model components to Luis’s specific graffiti were introduced.
- The City had ordinances authorizing use of city funds to abate graffiti and to recover certain costs, but it had not (1) adopted an ordinance authorizing the probation department to recoup average-cost restitution under Welfare & Institutions Code § 742.14, nor (2) updated its cost findings within the statutory three-year period.
- The cost model included both remediation costs and law enforcement investigative costs.
- The Juvenile Court applied the city average-cost model under general restitution authority (Welf. & Inst. Code § 730.6) and overruled objections; the Court of Appeal granted writ relief. The California Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a city’s untreated average-cost graffiti model can be used under the Graffiti Program statutes (§§ 742.14/742.16) | People: model valid to compute restitution | City: relied on model but failed to meet statutory ordinance/update requirements | Not applicable — City failed to adopt required ordinance and update cost findings, so §§ 742.14/742.16 unavailable here |
| Whether a court may rely on a city’s average-cost model under the general restitution statute (§ 730.6) | People: court may reasonably use average-cost model when exact costs impractical | Luis: § 730.6 requires nexus to the minor’s conduct and excludes investigative costs | No — § 730.6 requires a factual nexus to the minor’s specific conduct; averaging alone is insufficient |
| Whether investigative (law enforcement) costs in the model are recoverable under § 730.6 | People/City: investigative costs are part of practical remediation costs | Luis: investigative costs are not recoverable under general restitution law | No — investigative costs are generally not recoverable under § 730.6 and cannot be included absent the Graffiti Program’s valid cost findings |
| Remedy for defective restitution award | People: affirm award or allow reliance on model under § 730.6 | Luis: vacate and remand for new hearing with proper proof | Court vacated restitution order and directed a new restitution hearing with proper evidentiary nexus to Luis’s conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Martinez, 36 Cal.4th 384 (discusses that public agencies are not direct victims for investigative costs under restitution law)
- People v. Ozkan, 124 Cal.App.4th 1072 (investigative costs not recoverable as victim restitution)
- People v. Birkett, 21 Cal.4th 226 (legislative history on juvenile restitution statutes)
- In re Johnny M., 100 Cal.App.4th 1128 (preexisting public-entity costs may be pro rata apportioned under restitution)
- People v. Stanley, 54 Cal.4th 734 (restitution orders reviewed for abuse of discretion; broad construction of restitution statutes)
- In re Brittany L., 99 Cal.App.4th 1381 (court may use any rational method to estimate restitution but must be reasonably calculated to make victim whole)
- People v. Ortiz, 53 Cal.App.4th 791 (permissible restitution estimate based on rational inference where exact amount impractical)
- People v. Carbajal, 10 Cal.4th 1114 (restitution need not be limited to exact amount defendant is proven culpable for)
- In re M.W., 169 Cal.App.4th 1 (restitution objectives: make victim whole, rehabilitate minor, deter delinquency)