Opinion
E072394
02-18-2020
In re L.K., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. L.K., Defendant and Appellant.
Eric E. Reynolds, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Michael Cosgrove, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. SWJ1800005) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Sean Lafferty, Judge. Affirmed. Eric E. Reynolds, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Michael Cosgrove, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 2, 2018, a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 charged defendant and appellant L.K. (minor) with felony vandalism under Penal Code section 594, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1). On March 22, 2018, the juvenile court granted informal probation to minor for one year under Welfare and Institutions Code section 654.12. The court also ordered minor to pay restitution "in an amount to be determined by the Probation Department." On June 20, 2018, the court found and ordered that minor pay restitution in the amount of $5,572. The court ordered that "liability shall be joint and several less reimbursement by co-participant(s)." Thereafter, on August 23, 2018, the court stayed restitution pending a future restitution hearing.
On September 13, 2018, the probation department filed a request to revoke informal probation because minor had falsified community service records and had been disrespectful to probation officers. On September 18, 2018, minor entered into a plea agreement and admitted to a misdemeanor vandalism charge. The juvenile court found minor a person described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, adjudged him a ward of the court, ordered him to serve 14 days in juvenile hall, and placed him on probation.
On December 31, 2018, the probation department filed an amended notice of hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 777. The petition alleged that minor had violated his probation; police had arrested minor and four others for attacking a restaurant manager and vandalizing the restaurant. On January 15, 2019, minor admitted the allegation. The juvenile court ordered minor to serve 55 days in juvenile hall, with credit for time served, and to continue on probation until the restitution hearing, at which time the court would terminate the wardship.
On January 17, 2019, the juvenile court held a contested restitution hearing. After witness testimonies and arguments by counsel, the court ordered restitution in the amount of $5,572, joint and several with minor's coparticipants. The amount of restitution included $5,322 to repaint the victim's house.
On March 20, 2019, minor filed a timely notice of appeal.
On March 22, 2019, the juvenile court terminated minor's wardship as unsuccessful.
B. FACTUAL HISTORY
On November 20, 2017, minor purchased a flat of eggs. Thereafter, minor and six others went to egg the home of Richard D. (the victim) and two other homes. Minor believed that the victim's daughter helped two other girls egg Minor's home.
The next morning, the victim found his home and two cars had been struck by eggs and balloons filled with maple syrup. The victim cleaned the eggs off his car. He, however, could not clean the stucco on his home; the stucco was permanently damaged.
DISCUSSION
A. THE RESTITUION ORDER WAS PROPER
Minor contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in calculating the amount of restitution to repaint the victim's house. In support, minor argues that the evidence was insufficient because the damage to the victim's home could be repaired by a different method that cost substantially less than the amount awarded. We disagree.
In this case, the contested restitution hearing was held on January 17, 2019. At the hearing, the court stated that it had "already accepted the probation officer's estimation based on the information provided to them as an appropriate restitution amount. I made findings in that regard. Then the burden, obviously, to challenge that shifts to [minor]."
Minor's counsel called Gerard Grandi as a witness; he provided the original painting quote relied on by the probation department. He testified that he had been a painting contractor for 32 years. He stated that about one year prior, he provided a quote to the victim to paint the "complete exterior of the home." He stated that he could not remember if he saw any damage the day he walked around the victim's home with him. He remembered going back to the home after minor's mother called him in August of 2018. He looked at the home from his truck and noticed a dark spot, a smudge, on the stucco. He thought he could clean the spot with a power washer for $100.
Grandi testified that he did not believe he needed to repaint the home. Grandi stated he told minor's mother the following: "I told her I think you can just power wash it off and put a little cleaning chemical on there, wait a minute or so, see if it will do something, power wash it, let it dry, and see what it looks like once it's done." Grandi stated that he had repaired egg damage about six to eight times before. He noted, "Depending on the surface, if it could be compartmentalized like on a garage door, front door, a set of shutters, you just clean that off, sand it, repaint it, and it's done. If it's on the stucco that I saw, generally I would say 'Well, we can try and clean it off, let it dry, and see what it looks like, and you decide whether that will work for you or you want to paint the whole house, or just this side of the house.' I leave it up to the homeowner to try and save them some money." Grandi then concluded that in his opinion the house only needed a power wash, and did not need to be repainted. He stated, "Well, considering the age of the home and the way the house faced in the south southwest exposure, usually the sun does its most damage to a home or a property that way, usually fades out a lot of the paint. And the stucco, which is a color code, usually fades out just as well. And if there are blotchy spots on the stucco at that point, the power washing—the spot I don't think would have many any—deterred anything of the value of the home or the look of the home based on as old as the home was." Later, when questioned by the court, Grandi testified that his power washer had enough pressure to take stucco off a house, if he had to.
The People called the victim to the stand. The victim testified that he found eggshells, syrup, and stains stuck on the stucco of his home; this caused permanent discoloration in five or six spots of the stucco. He and his wife tried to wash the stains off with a hose. They were unsuccessful because the hose could not reach the second floor. The victim then obtained a quote to paint his house for $5,322 from Grandi.
Before Grandi gave the victim the quote, they walked around the house. The victim showed Grandi the five or six damaged spots. They did not discuss power washing as an option to repair the damage. The victim testified that Grandi only discussed repainting the house.
The victim stated that even after a year since the incident, he could still see the discolorations and believed that power washing would not be enough to remove them because of the age of the house. He obtained another estimate from a different painting contractor that was similar to Grandi's estimate. The victim had not painted his house because he was saving up for the job.
After the victim testified, minor's mother asked to testify. She stated that after seeing Grandi's quote, she went to the victim's home to look at the damage. Minor's mother stated that she only noticed a spot the size of a quarter near the front door on the trim; she got out of her car to see it. She believed the spot could be cleaned with "a little brush with some suds." She stated that when someone egged her home, she was able to clean the egg off her home. Minor's mother left the victim's home after 10 minutes when the victim's wife came home. Minor's mother called Grandi to have him explain the quote. She also asked him to look at the house again. Minor's mother stated that when her house was also egged, she cleaned it off. She opined that the restitution order to repaint the entire house for an egging seemed "absurd." She went on to state, "I really feel that [the victim] now is the real criminal. These young boys are trying to make a life of themselves, and, yes, they made a mistake. But should they be paying that kind of amount for an egging? I don't agree." She then stated, "I believe a victim should be made whole. I am in total agreement with that. I believe that [the victim]—I feel sorry that that happened to his house, and I'm sorry that it happened to my house. And kids will do stupid things, and this was definitely a stupid move on my son's part, and his friends', and [the victim's] daughter."
After hearing argument from counsel, the trial court stated that it would issue a written order. On January 24, 2019, the juvenile filed its detailed findings and order.
In the order, the court found the witnesses credible. The court noted:
"In considering the evidence presented this Court is not persuaded that any witness was being untruthful, and rejects the minors' suggestion that [the victim] was exaggerating his damages or claim. Minors' argument, while reasonable, is ultimately flawed in that [the victim] was convinced of the damage he observed to the house he had owned for many years, acted appropriately in determining how he could be 'made whole,' and should not be expected to accept damage that he clearly recognizes. The subsequent, brief visit by Mr. Grandi and [minor's mother] to the house focused on one point of identifiable damage, but did not include [the victim] and a detailed examination and discussion of what damage existed, and where it was located. It is clear that multiple eggs were thrown at the property, as well s balloons filled with syrup, by numerous minors. It is not difficult to imagine the mess crated by the minors' actions, and [the victim] states that he still sees the paint discoloration damage caused by the vandalism."
Thereafter, the court found that minor failed to carry his burden to disprove the estimate to repair the victim's home. Based on the evidence and the rehabilitative purposes of restitution, the court ordered $5,572 in restitution.
On appeal, minor contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering $5,322 in restitution "because the evidence presented at the restitution hearing established that the egg damage could be repaired for substantially less money without repainting the house." We disagree.
Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 provides for victim restitution when a minor described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 causes a victim to incur economic loss as a result of the minor's conduct. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6, subd. (a)(1).) Upon finding a minor to be a person described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, the juvenile court must order the minor to pay victim restitution. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6, subd. (a)(2)(B).) The juvenile court shall order full restitution unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons not to do so and states them on the record. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6, subd. (h).) The restitution order shall be in an amount sufficient to fully reimburse the victim for all determined economic losses incurred as a result of the minor's conduct. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6, subd. (h).) In addition to making the victim whole, victim restitution also has a deterrent and rehabilitative effect. (People v. Cookson (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1091, 1097.) The juvenile court is vested with considerable discretion in determining the amount of restitution. " '[W]hile the amount of restitution cannot be arbitrary or capricious, "there is no requirement the restitution order be limited to the exact amount of the loss in which the defendant is actually found culpable, nor is there any requirement the order reflect the amount of damages that might be recoverable in a civil action." ' " (In re Brittany L. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1381, 1392.) The juvenile court abuses its discretion when it acts contrary to law or when there is no factual and rational basis for the amount of restitution ordered. (In re Anthony M. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1016.)
In this case, as provided in detail ante, the court's restitution order had a factual and rational basis. Grandi testified that it would cost $5,322 to repaint the exterior of the victim's home. Moreover, as noted by the juvenile court, there is nothing in the record to indicate that minor's mother and Grandi inspected the house thoroughly. Grandi and minor's mother only noticed one spot while the victim testified that his home had five to six spots of damage. Grandi, when he returned the second time to inspect the house, observed the house from his truck. Minor's mother only spent 10 minutes at the house and noticed one spot on the stucco. Neither Grandi nor minor's mother stated that they had inspected the second story of the home. The victim, however, testified that he and his wife attempted to clean the stucco but were unsuccessful because the hose could not reach the second story of their home. Moreover, although Grandi indicated that he would have recommended power washing the stucco, and that it could remove the stain, there was no evidence indicating that power washing would ultimately be successful. Grandi testified that for non-stucco-surfaced components, such as doors and shutters, he cleans off the egg damage, then sands down the wood and repaints the surfaces. For stucco, Grandi testified that he tries to clean the stucco, and after it dries, he sees what it looks like. If the power washing does not work, the stucco would be repainted. Therefore, even Grandi's testimony showed that egg damage on stucco could possibly remain after power cleaning, which would require repainting.
In People v. Stanley (2012) 54 Cal.4th 734, 736, the defendant objected to a restitution order to pay the cost to repair a truck that exceeded the replacement cost of the truck. The defendant claimed that the order bestowed a windfall for the victim. (Id. at p. 738.) The California Supreme Court held that the restitution statute did not mandate a trial court order the lesser of the replacement cost or the cost to repair. "The statute leaves the choice to the trial court." (Ibid.) The fact that the repair cost exceeded the cost to replace did not mean the victim got a windfall; it meant that the victim got "her truck back in the same condition it was before [the] defendant vandalized it." (Id. at p. 739.)
Similarly, in this case, the juvenile court weighed the evidence presented by both parties. It reasonably selected the one that made the victim whole. Although we may have made a different finding, resolution of conflicting evidence and credibility issues is for the trier of fact to decide. (People v. Martinez (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1331.) The evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding. Therefore, we hold that the juvenile court acted well within its discretion in awarding restitution in this matter.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J. We concur: McKINSTER
Acting P. J. CODRINGTON
J.