People v. Alexander A.
192 Cal. App. 4th 847
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Alexander vandalized a school mural and David Borja’s 1992 Honda Accord LX; adjudicated a ward for maliciously damaging property over $400.
- At restitution, mural repair cost was reduced to $234.92 after school painted over graffiti due to budget constraints.
- Borja sought restitution for car repair, submitting an $8,219.18 estimate; various vehicle values were presented (replacement value ~ $5,300; good/poor condition ranges).
- Court ordered restitution to Borja for $8,219.18 and his parents joint and severally liable; ruled repair costs rehabilitative and reasonable.
- Court cited Dina V. to support allowing repair cost as restitution where it better serves victims and rehabilitation; rejected strict civil-tort limits.
- People argued the mural restitution should be $234.92 (stipulated) and that the staged $18,750 mural repair cost was not the basis; court accepted the $234.92.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rail on measure: repair costs vs replacement value | Alexander: windfall; Yanez limits to civil damages. | Alexander: should cap at replacement value; Dina V. allows higher repair costs. | Restitution may use repair cost; not limited to replacement value. |
| Whether Dina V. governs the measure of restitution | Dina V. authorizes replacement-cost-based restitution only. | Dina V. permits flexible calculation beyond strict tort limits. | Court adopts Dina V. flexibility; not bound by strict tort standards. |
| Whether the court abused its discretion in accepting the mural restitution stipulation | Petition argued the mural cost should be $18,750 instead of $234.92. | Stipulated amount reflects economic loss; error not preserved for appeal. | People forfeited claim; the stipulation accepted was proper as an economic loss. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Dina V., 151 Cal.App.4th 486 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (limits of strict civil-damages approach; flexibility in restitution)
- People v. Yanez, 38 Cal.App.4th 1622 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (restitution not to exceed civil-damages measure (windfalls concern))
- People v. Anderson, 50 Cal.4th 19 (Cal. 2010) (no requirement restitution equals actual loss; rehabilitation goals)
- People v. Carbajal, 10 Cal.4th 1114 (Cal. 1995) (restitution not a substitute for civil action)
- Brittany L., 99 Cal.App.4th 1381 (Cal. App. 2002) (restitution must be reasonably calculated to rehabilitate and deter)
- In re Johnny M., 100 Cal.App.4th 1128 (Cal. App. 2002) (restitution upheld when basis is factual and rational)