Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re Alexander A., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court v. Alexander A

February 10, 2011

IN RE ALEXANDER A., A PERSON COMING UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW. THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
ALEXANDER A., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



Super. Ct. No. J223716 APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Amelia L. Meza, Judge. Affirmed.

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

Alexander A. appeals a restitution order under Welfare and Institutions Code*fn1 section 730.6. We affirm.

Alexander vandalized a school mural and a car. He was adjudicated a ward of the court for maliciously damaging and destroying real and personal property valued in excess of $400 in violation of Penal Code section 594, subdivisions (a), (b)(1). Alexander contends the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to pay $8,219.18 in restitution to the owner of the car which, at most, had a replacement value of approximately $5,300.

FACTS

Alexander pleaded guilty to defacing a school mural, which had been a gift to the school from the community, and vandalizing David Borja's 1992 Honda Accord LX (Accord).

At the restitution hearing, the deputy district attorney informed the court the school determined it did not have the funds to repair the three-wall mural at a cost of $18,750, and instead had the mural painted over at a cost of $234.92. Pursuant to a stipulated agreement, the court ordered Alexander to pay $234.92 in restitution to the school.*fn2

Borja asked the court to order Alexander to pay the full cost of repairing the car. At the restitution hearing, Borja submitted an estimate of $8,219.19 to repair the Accord. He testified he considered replacing the Accord because he did not have the money to repair it and it was slowly deteriorating. According to the Kelley Blue Book, which Borja had viewed two months earlier, a dealer's price for a 1992 Accord in excellent condition was approximately $5,300, the estimate for a nondealer sale of a 1992 Accord in good condition was in the mid-$3,000 range and one in poor condition was worth between $1,800 and $1,900.

Alexander presented evidence showing that the nondealer purchase price of a 1992 Honda Accord LX in good condition was $2,605 and that the dealer purchase price of the same model in excellent condition was $4,205. At the time of the hearing, there was a 1992 Honda Accord LX on Craig's List, an Internet bulletin board, for $1,795.

At the end of the proceedings, the court asked whether Borja wanted to repair the Accord. The deputy district attorney stated without objection that Borja wanted to keep the car.

The juvenile court ordered Alexander to pay Borja restitution of $8,219.18 and found Alexander's parents jointly and severally liable in that amount. Citing In re Dina V. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 486 (Dina V.), the court stated the restitution amount was reasonable because the victim should not have to go to the trouble of looking for a similar vehicle in precrime condition. The court found that ordering Alexander to pay the cost of repairing the car was rehabilitative and taught him there were consequences to his behavior.

DISCUSSION

I

The Court Did Not Err When It Ordered Restitution in the Amount of Repair

Alexander contends the juvenile court erred when it ordered him to pay restitution for the higher repair costs instead of the lower replacement value of the Accord. He asserts the restitution award, which he claims was $3,000 to $5,000 more than the car's replacement value, resulted in a windfall to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.