Stanley

People v. Stanley

Good Law
143 Cal. Rptr. 3d 260·2012 Cal. LEXIS 6360·54 Cal. 4th 734·2012 WL 2686050·279 P.3d 585
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 9, 2012S185961California1,677 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kennard, J.

By statute, a crime victim who has suffered property damage is entitled to have the defendant pay restitution for “the replacement cost of like property, or the actual cost of repairing the property when repair is possible.” (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f)(3)(A); further statutory references are to the Penal Code.) Here, defendant Leroy Stanley in 2009 vandalized Patricia Short-Lyster’s 1975 Dodge Adventurer four-door, three-quarter-ton pickup truck, extensively denting it and damaging the driver’s side rear door so badly that it could no longer be opened. Some 18 months before the vandalism, Short-Lyster paid $950 for the truck, which was in excellent condition. Her father, a former auto mechanic, had checked out the truck and advised her to buy it.

Defendant entered a plea of no contest to felony vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)) in exchange for a 16-month prison sentence and the dismissal of other charges. The trial court ordered restitution in the amount of $2,812.94, reflecting an automotive body shop’s written estimate of repair cost. The Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting defendant’s contention that the trial court should have limited restitution to the victim’s $950…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.