People v. Aguilar
4 Cal. App. 5th 857
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Christian Aguilar pled no contest to felony vandalism for painting profane, anti-police graffiti on an ~80-foot wall of a day care center, admitting damage over $400.
- City of Los Angeles contracted Northeast Graffiti Busters to abate the graffiti; the City’s invoice for abatement was $475 and was admitted at the restitution hearing.
- City witness Gerry Valido testified $475 is the City’s flat private-property graffiti-removal rate, based on a cost sheet factoring paint, manpower, vehicles, administrative costs, and insurance; he opined $475 was fair for the incident.
- Valido conceded contractors are paid from annual contracts (not per incident) and he did not know specific hours, paint cost, or the City’s annual abatement budget.
- Defense argued under Luis M. the City’s showing lacked a factual nexus to Aguilar’s specific graffiti (no time/materials breakdown or per-square-foot estimate); prosecutor and court found photographs plus Valido’s opinion sufficient.
- Trial court ordered $475 restitution to the City; Aguilar appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution under Pen. Code §1202.4 required a factual nexus to defendant’s specific graffiti and thus whether the City’s flat-rate evidence was sufficient | City: Valido’s testimony and photos provided a factual nexus; $475 is a reasonable abatement cost | Aguilar: Luis M. requires a showing tied to materials, labor, time, or per-square-foot basis; flat-rate/cost-sheet lacks nexus | Affirmed: court held Valido’s experience plus photos gave a sufficient factual nexus; flat-rate testimony was an acceptable estimate and not barred by Luis M. |
Key Cases Cited
- Luis M. v. Superior Court, 59 Cal.4th 300 (Cal. 2014) (juvenile restitution must be factually tied to the minor’s conduct; courts may estimate but need a nexus to the specific damage)
- People v. Santori, 243 Cal.App.4th 122 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (expert familiar with abatement may use photos and experience to estimate per-incident abatement cost; factual nexus satisfied)
- People v. Gemelli, 161 Cal.App.4th 1539 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (restitution amount need not be proved by particular evidence type; court reviews for abuse of discretion)