In Re Dina

59 Cal.Rptr.3d 862 (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 486 In re DINA V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

The People, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Dina V., Defendant and Appellant.

No. A115702. Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Four.

May 25, 2007. [863] Rachel Lederman, for Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown Jr., Dane R. Gillette, Gerald A. Engler, Catherine A. Rivlin, Martin S. Kaye, San Francisco, for Respondent.

SEPULVEDA, J.

The minor Dina V. admitted an allegation that she took a vehicle without the owner's permission (Veh.Code, § 10851, subd. (a))[1]; she was placed on probation in her parents' home and ordered to complete 30 hours of community service. A restitution hearing was held and the minor was ordered to pay the victim restitution in the amount of $4,419.72, which represented the cost of repairing the victim's vehicle. The minor appeals, arguing that the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering an amount of restitution that exceeded the replacement value of the damaged car ($3,000). We disagree and affirm.

The underlying facts are not relevant to the determination of the sole issue presented by this appeal and therefore will not be discussed in detail. The legal issue presented is, simply stated, whether the appropriate amount of restitution is limited by the replacement value of the stolen vehicle. Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 states that in a juvenile case, "[t]he court shall order full restitution ... of a dollar amount sufficient to fully reimburse the victim ... for all determined economic losses incurred as the result of the minor's conduct ... including ... [¶] ... (1) Full or partial payment of the value of stolen or damaged property. The value of stolen or damaged property shall be the replacement cost of like property, or the actual cost of repairing the property when repair is possible." (Italics added.) The question is whether the trial court has discretion to order the greater amount, when the cost to repair the stolen or damaged property exceeds the replacement cost.