People v. Newsom

Filed 1/10/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B312652

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA108516 v.

PAULETTE NEWSOM,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Terry Lee Smerling, Judge. Affirmed.

Jolene Larimore, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Zee Rodriguez and Michael C. Keller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________

Something called a “branded title” can reduce a car’s resale value. Stealing a car can brand its title. The question is whether a criminal restitution order can account for this loss. The answer is yes: this lost value is objectively quantifiable. For purposes of restitution, the loss is real. Police caught Paulette Newsom with a stolen Audi. She pleaded no contest to theft offenses. At the restitution hearing, she assented to a sum to repair the car; that sum is not at issue. The Audi owner also submitted an email from a car dealer explaining that, because of the Audi’s branded title, it now was worth $15,000 instead of $18,000 to $20,000. The prosecutor explained that, when a car is stolen, the car’s title notes this fact, which reduces the car’s market value. Newsom accepted $3,000 as the dollar value of the title stain, but she challenged whether this loss can be part of a restitution order. She argued the owner does not realize the loss until the car is sold and the owner might never sell. Newsom said that, until then, the $3,000 loss is merely speculative. The trial court rightly rejected Newsom’s argument. The California Constitution requires courts to order restitution when a crime victim suffers a loss. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b)(13)(B).) Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f), which implements this directive, states restitution should be based on the amount of loss the victim claims and should fully reimburse the victim for every economic loss the defendant’s criminal conduct caused. We liberally construe victims’ right to restitution and expansively interpret the meaning of economic loss. (People v. Grandpierre (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 111, 115.) The aim is to make the victim whole. (People v. Marrero (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 896, 906.)