People v. Jaquith CA1/5

DISCUSSION

Jaquith’s sole claim on appeal is the court abused its discretion by imposing $100 in restitution for the victim’s “‘transportation’ without any factual basis.” Section 1202.4, subdivision (f) provides in relevant part, “[I]n every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct, the court shall require that the defendant make restitution to the victim . . . in an amount . . . based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim . . . or any other showing to the court . . . . The court shall order full restitution unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states them on the record. . . . [¶] (3) To the extent possible, the restitution order shall . . . identify each victim and each loss to which it pertains, and shall be of a dollar amount that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim . . . for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct. . . .” (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)(3); see also People v. Stanley (2012) 54 Cal.4th 734, 737.) We review the restitution order for abuse of discretion. (People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26 (Millard).) “‘“A…