Error and/or relief
The trial court erred in ordering restitution in the amount of the full retail price of sunglasses that were returned to the victim, a retail store, by the police soon after the theft.
First Holding:
In 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 or victims in an amount established by court order, based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim or victims or any other showing to the court.
Restitution shall be of a dollar amount that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct, including, but not limited to, 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. A victim may also seek lost profits.
Authority:
PEN 1202.4(f)
Second Holding:
A prima facie case for restitution can be made based on a victim’s testimony or other claim or statement of the amount of economic loss. Once a prima facie showing of loss has been made, the burden shifts to defendant to demonstrate that the amount of the loss is other than that claimed by the victim.
Authority:
People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26
Third Holding:
We review restitution orders for abuse of discretion. Where the specific issue is whether the court’s factual findings support restitution, we review those findings for substantial evidence.
Authority:
People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26
People v. Hume (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 990, 995
People v. Trout-Lacy (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 369, 373
Fourth Holding:
Ordering a defendant to pay retail value is justified when a retailer shows it lost the opportunity to sell the stolen goods to customers at that price — in other words, that it lost profits because of the thefts.
Authority:
People v. Chappelone (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1178 [retail value of recovered stolen property was not an appropriate measure of restitution when the prosecutor presented no evidence that the victim retailer lost any profits as a result of the theft]
Fifth Holding:
Had the victim been a person who purchased the sunglasses at a store for the retail price, the retail price may have been the accurate measure of damages.
But the victim retailer did not seek lost profits on its restitution request form or introduce evidence at the hearing supporting such a claim. The trial court, in fact, ordered defense counsel to refrain from examining the store manager about the store’s sales volume after the prosecutor objected on relevancy grounds. The restitution award was therefore limited to the replacement cost of like property.
Using retail value as the sole basis to calculate restitution, based on this record, resulted in a windfall to the victim retailer.
Authority:
PEN 1202.4(f)(3)(A)
People v. Chappelone (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1172 [A restitution order is intended to compensate the victim for its actual loss and is not intended to provide the victim with a windfall]
People v. Valle (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1329, 1333 [awarding purchase price of stolen cell phone that was returned to victim was error when defendant elicited testimony the victim hoped to use or sell the phone]