The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nicholson , J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
In conjunction with imposition of a four-year state prison sentence for crimes including receipt of a stolen motorcycle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a); further references are to the Penal Code), the trial court ordered defendant Steven Eugene Raines to pay restitution to the victim of the stolen motorcycle in the amount of $6,789.14. On appeal, defendant contends the restitution award was an abuse of discretion. We affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The record contains no facts regarding the details of the theft offense underlying the victim restitution award. However, a detailed factual summary is not necessary for the disposition of this appeal. The relevant procedural history is summarized as follows.
Defendant pleaded no contest*fn1 in case No. 09F8253 to receiving a stolen motorcycle (§ 496d, subd. (a)) in exchange for dismissal of all other charges against him and a maximum sentence of 180 days in county jail. He was released on his own recognizance.
Nearly six months later, defendant pleaded guilty*fn2 in case No. 10F1449 to fraudulent use of an access card (§ 484g) and admitted having committed that offense while released on his own recognizance (§ 12022.1) in exchange for dismissal of other charges against him and a stipulated sentence of three years four months, plus eight months for the charge as previously pled in case No. 09F8253, for an aggregate term of four years in state prison.
The court sentenced defendant in case Nos. 09F8253 and 10F1449 to a combined term of four years consistent with the negotiated plea agreement. Defendant was awarded 33 actual custody credits, plus 32 conduct credits, for a total of 65 presentence custody credits. The court imposed fees and fines, including an $800 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), an $800 parole revocation fine, stayed pending successful completion of parole (§ 1202.45), and victim restitution in the amount of $6,789.14 (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)).
At defendant's request, the court held a restitution hearing. The court admitted as People's Exhibit No. 1 a one-page document entitled "Itemization of Loss and Request for Restitution," attached to which was a six-page computer generated itemized list of motorcycle parts and their corresponding cost. When the court asked whether the list was from a bike repair shop, the prosecutor responded, "Yes. I spoke to the victim, and he told me that those items -- that list was provided to him by the repair shop. He also told me he's done approximately half of the work already, and he's already put over $3,000 out of pocket." The court also admitted as Defense Exhibit No. A a one-page Kelley Blue Book valuation of the victim's motorcycle at $6,140.
The prosecutor requested an order of victim restitution in the amount of $6,789.14, arguing as follows: "The proper measure of restitution is not the retail value or the cost per Kelley Blue Book, but the Court needs to put the victim back into the position where he would have been had the crime never occurred. This . . . isn't an insurance claim where he gets today's value -- depreciated value of the vehicle or the motorcycle here. But the victim has presented an estimate for the damages and what it's going to cost to get his motorcycle back to the way that it was before the defendant committed his crime . . . ."
Defendant's counsel argued $6,100 was the appropriate amount of restitution, as follows: "[Section] 1202.4 actually states that it's the value of stolen or damaged property shall be the replacement cost of a like property or the actual cost of repairing the property when repair is possible. [¶] Based on the documentation that's been provided to the Court, all that is is a laundry list of parts and items that's been provided by the victims. It's not an estimate from a shop. All it is is a laundry list of the parts. And it doesn't show that's the actual cost of repairing the vehicle. We don't have evidence repair is possible. [¶] What I've provided is the replacement cost of a like property and that is the value. So I think the victim here is trying to gain a certain windfall when he's asking for [$]6,700. The [$6,100], the ...