California Court of Appeal Apr 20, 2015 No. D065549Unpublished
Filed 4/20/15 In re Thomas C. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re THOMAS C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D065549 THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J230661)
v.
THOMAS C.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Browder A.
Willis, Judge. Affirmed.
Charles R. Khoury, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton and Christopher P.
Beesley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Minor Defendant Thomas C. (Thomas) admitted to five counts of graffiti
vandalism. The juvenile court ordered him to pay $10,339.26 in restitution, to reimburse
the City of San Marcos for all resultant damage. On appeal, Thomas contends the
juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering an amount of restitution that does not
reflect the actual costs incurred to remove the graffiti. We affirm the order.
removal date; (6) removal method; and (7) type of camera used to document the graffiti.
The People also submitted City's cost matrix, which categorized and assessed the
expenses generally incurred, per square foot, to clean up graffiti, and estimated City spent
approximately $267.40 per violation. City calculated removal costs to be $10,339.26.
At $400 per violation, Thomas would owe City restitution in the amount of
$12,000. At $267.40 per violation, Thomas would owe City restitution in the amount of
$8,022. The actual restitution amount falls almost squarely in between these
estimations.3 Given the fact the trial court considered the size, extent, and type of graffiti
involved, including the average cost per square foot to paint over or otherwise restore the
defaced surfaces, and the trial court retains broad discretion under section 730.6 to
estimate the costs necessary both to repair the damage caused and to rehabilitate the
minor, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered Thomas to pay
restitution in the amount of $10,339.26. (See Luis M. v. Superior Court (2014) 59
Cal.4th 300, 310 [explaining "the trial court retains broad discretion under section 730.6
to estimate the material, equipment, and labor costs necessary to repair the damage
caused by a discrete act of graffiti," and to use photographs that reflect the size, extent,
and type of graffiti involved, witnesses who estimate the average cost per square foot, or
3 The precise middle between $12,000 and $8,022 is $10,011, a $328.26 difference from the restitution order.
6
business records that establish the time spent and materials used to provide a rational
basis for estimating costs].)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
McDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
NARES, J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering $10,339.26 in restitution for graffiti vandalism, as the court utilized a rational method based on the size, extent, and type of graffiti to estimate repair costs.
Issues
Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion by ordering a restitution amount that allegedly failed to reflect the actual costs incurred by the City to remove the graffiti?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered Thomas to pay restitution in the amount of $10,339.26.”