P.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that there is no evidence to support the $66,466.95 victim

restitution award to Ms. A., and therefore the amount should be reduced to $51,982.50.

The People agree that the restitution award to Ms. A. should be reduced, but claim the

amount should be reduced to $53,534.48.

“[T]he court‟s discretion in setting the amount of restitution is broad, and it may

use any rational method of fixing the amount of restitution as long as it is reasonably

calculated to make the victim whole.” (People v. Baker (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 463,

470.) But a “restitution order is intended to compensate the victim for its actual loss

and is not intended to provide the victim with a windfall. [Citations.]” (People v.

Chappelone (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1172.)

Once the victim makes a prima facie showing of economic losses incurred as a

result of the defendant‟s criminal acts, the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove

the amount of losses claimed by the victim. (People v. Fulton (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th

876, 886.) Defendant has the burden of rebutting the victim‟s statement of losses, and

may submit evidence to prove the amount claimed exceeds the repair or…