People v. Scotto CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Sep 29, 2025 No. B336756Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed a restitution order requiring the defendant to pay for the victim's lost security deposit and rent, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the victim's relocation was a direct result of the defendant's criminal conduct.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in awarding restitution for lease-related losses without formal verification of relocation expenses.
Whether the restitution order was premature or unripe due to the victim's pending civil litigation against her landlord.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding the victim's decision to vacate the apartment was a reasonable consequence of the defendant's burglary.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A victim’s restitution right is to be broadly and liberally construed.”

“Payments received by a crime victim . . . from an independent third party for economic losses suffered as a result of the defendant’s criminal conduct cannot reduce the amount of restitution the defendant owes”

“Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that defendant’s criminal conduct caused Abalaki to move out of her apartment and forfeit her deposit”

Filed 9/29/25 P. v. Scotto CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B336756

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 23ARCF00023)

KRISTI SCOTTO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kathryn A. Solorzano, Judge. Affirmed. Susan Morrow Maxwell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Jonathan M. Krauss and Stefanie Yee, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

At a restitution hearing following a no contest plea, the trial court ordered defendant Kristi Scotto to pay restitution, which included the security deposit and two months’ rent (lease award) the victim lost when she vacated her apartment after the defendant’s burglary. Defendant appeals the restitution order, contending the lease award1 is neither authorized by statute nor ripe for decision. We affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

On November 4, 2023, Mariami Abalaki moved into an apartment in Los Angeles. She signed a one-year lease at $1,695 per month, and paid a deposit of $5,085 consisting of a one-month security deposit and first and last month’s rent. On November 15, 2023, she came home to find defendant and codefendant Ruben Montijo inside her apartment. Montijo and defendant yelled at Abalaki. Montijo brandished a knife and defendant warned Abalaki that “if she [did not] leave the apartment, it would not end up well.” Defendant and Montijo were arrested, but the burglary left Abalaki shaken. After the burglary, Abalaki began to have problems sleeping and would wake in a panic to check that the apartment doors were locked. Defendant was the prior tenant of Abalaki’s apartment and had lived there for over ten years before she was

People v. Scotto CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B336756

KRISTI SCOTTO,

I. INTRODUCTION

II. BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III. DISCUSSION

C. Analysis

IV. DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM (D.), J.

HOFFSTADT, P. J.

AI Brief