People v. Dina V.

[488]Opinion

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 ordéred 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 ¿bused 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 . . . [j[] (1) Full or partial payment for 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.

The Fourth District previously answered this question in the negative, in the context of an adult criminal case. In People v. Yanez (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1622, 1624-1625 [46 Cal.Rptr.2d 1], the defendant was convicted of receiving stolen property. The trial court awarded over $7,300 in restitution pursuant to Penal Code former section 1203.04, subd. (d), based upon the cost of repairing the victim’s stolen vehicle, despite undisputed evidence that the maximum value of the vehicle prior to its being stolen was $4,100.2 The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the civil measure of damages, limited to the lesser of the cost of repair or the cost of replacement, should have been [489]