PEOPLE v. STANLEY
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>PEOPLE v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b<br /> >PEOPLE v. </b><b<br /> >STANLEY</b><b<br /> ></b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 8/3/10<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><u>CERTIFIED<br /> FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION</u>*<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN THE COURT OF<br /> APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/>THIRD APPELLATE<br /> DISTRICT<br /> <br/>(Yolo)<br /> <br/>----<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=394 valign=top ><br /> <br/>THE PEOPLE,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Plaintiff and Respondent,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>LEROY STANLEY,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Defendant and Appellant.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=230 valign=top ><br /> <br/>C063661<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>(Super.<br /> Ct. No.<br /> <br/>09-3110)<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> APPEAL<br /> from a judgment of the Superior Court<br /> of Yolo County,<br /> Paul K. Richardson, Judge. Affirmed.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Robert<br /> Navarro, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Edmund<br /> G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, and Jeffrey D. Firestone, Deputy Attorney<br /> General, for Plaintiff and Appellant.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> We here decide how<br /> to calculate a victim's property damages for purposes of a victim restitution order. When a criminal damages a victim's vehicle,<br /> we conclude the trial court may in its discretion award the victim the cost of<br /> repairing the vehicle, even if that amount exceeds the replacement value of the<br /> vehicle. In doing so, we agree with <i<br /> >In re Dina V.</i> (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 486<br /> (<i >Dina V</i>.) and disagree with <i<br /> >People v. Yanez</i> (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th<br /> 1622 (<i >Yanez</i>). <br /> <br/>BACKGROUND<br /> <br/> Defendant Leroy<br /> Stanley pled no contest to felony vandalism of Patricia Short-Lyster's truck,<br /> in exchange for a 16-month prison sentence, the dismissal of other charges, and<br /> the prosecutor's promise not to file other charges. Short-Lyster and defendant were not<br /> acquainted.<br /> <br/> The facts show<br /> that on July 2, 2009, defendant<br /> damaged Stoddard's pickup truck, a 1975 Dodge Adventurer, for which she paid<br /> $950, a year and a half earlier. When<br /> purchased, the truck was in excellent condition. Stoddard's father, a former auto mechanic, looked at the truck and<br /> advised her to buy it. After defendant<br /> vandalized it, Stoddard obtained a body shop estimate to fix it, amounting to<br /> $2,812.94. <br /> <br/> The trial court<br /> sentenced defendant to a stipulated term of 16 months in state prison. <br /> <br/> Over defendant's<br /> objection that it would give the victim a windfall, the trial court ordered<br /> restitution in the amount of the repairs, $2,812.94. <br /> <br/> Defendant timely<br /> appealed, specifying a challenge to the restitution amount. <br /> <br<br /> clear=all ><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DISCUSSION<br /> <br/>I<br /> <br/><i >Victim Restitution</i><br /> <br/> Defendant contends<br /> the matter must be remanded for the trial court to reconsider the restitution<br /> award, because it was unreasonable to award the victim nearly three times the<br /> cost of her truck as restitution. We disagree.<br /> <br/> â€