P. v. Stanley 8/3/10 CA3

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2010 » P. v. Stanley 8/3/10 CA3

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: C063661

Case Date: 11/12/2010

Preview:Filed 8/3/10

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ---THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEROY STANLEY, Defendant and Appellant. C063661 (Super. Ct. No. 09-3110)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Yolo County, Paul K. Richardson, Judge. Affirmed. Robert Navarro, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, and Jeffrey D. Firestone, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

We here decide how to calculate a victims property damages for purposes of a victim restitution order. When a criminal

damages a victims vehicle, we conclude the trial court may in

*

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of part II of the Discussion. 1

its discretion award the victim the cost of repairing the vehicle, even if that amount exceeds the replacement value of the vehicle. In doing so, we agree with In re Dina V. (2007)

151 Cal.App.4th 486 (Dina V.) and disagree with People v. Yanez (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1622 (Yanez). BACKGROUND Defendant Leroy Stanley pled no contest to felony vandalism of Patricia Short-Lysters truck, in exchange for a 16-month prison sentence, the dismissal of other charges, and the prosecutors promise not to file other charges. and defendant were not acquainted. The facts show that on July 2, 2009, defendant damaged Stoddards pickup truck, a 1975 Dodge Adventurer, for which she paid $950, a year and a half earlier. was in excellent condition. When purchased, the truck former auto After Short-Lyster

Stoddards father, a

mechanic, looked at the truck and advised her to buy it.

defendant vandalized it, Stoddard obtained a body shop estimate to fix it, amounting to $2,812.94. The trial court sentenced defendant to a stipulated term of 16 months in state prison. Over defendants objection that it would give the victim a windfall, the trial court ordered restitution in the amount of the repairs, $2,812.94. Defendant timely appealed, specifying a challenge to the restitution amount.

2

DISCUSSION I Victim Restitution Defendant contends the matter must be remanded for the trial court to reconsider the restitution award, because it was unreasonable to award the victim nearly three times the cost of her truck as restitution. We disagree.

"One portion of Proposition 8, the ,,Victims Bill of Rights, passed by the people in the exercise of their reserved initiative powers in 1982, states ,,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. (Cal. Const., art. I,

Download P. v. Stanley 8/3/10 CA3.pdf