CA4/1

DISCUSSION

At the completion of the restitution hearing, the juvenile court found the proper

restitution to the victim under the circumstances of this case to be $681. The court found

that amount was necessary to actually replace the smart phone that had been stolen. The

court also found that ordering the minor to make the victim whole was important to the

minor's rehabilitation. The court expressly relied on the opinion of this court in In re

Alexander A. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 847 (Alexander), to support his exercise of

discretion. Ramiro contends the court misapplied our decision. We disagree, and will

find the court properly determined the amount of economic damages actually incurred by

the victim of Ramiro's conduct.

A. Legal Principles

Under the California Constitution, trial courts have broad discretion to impose

restitution orders for economic losses caused by criminal conduct. (Cal. Const., art. I,

3 § 28, subd. (b), par. (13)(A).) Victims' rights to restitution should be broadly and

liberally construed. (People v. Saint-Amans (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1084; In re

Johnny M. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1132.)

Juvenile courts are vested…