In re L.B. CA2/6

DISCUSSION

L.B. argues that the restitution order should be reversed because the court failed to consider his rehabilitation goals in setting a fair amount. We disagree. Section 730.6 provides that a victim “who incurs an economic loss as a result of the minor’s conduct shall receive restitution directly from that minor.” (§ 730.6, subd. (a)(1).) The “court shall order the minor to pay . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . [r]estitution to the victim . . . in accordance with subdivision (h).” (Id. at subd. (a)(2)(B).) Subdivision (h) provides that a “restitution order . . . to the extent possible, shall identify . . . the amount of each victim’s loss to which it pertains, and shall be of a dollar amount sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for all determined economic losses incurred as a result of the minor’s conduct . . . including all of the following: [¶] (A) Full or partial payment for the value of stolen or damaged property. The value of stolen or damaged property shall be the replacement cost of like property, or the actual cost of repairing the property when repair is possible.” We review a trial court’s order of direct victim restitution for abuse of discretion. (Luis…