Error and/or relief
We affirm the juvenile court’s restitution order as modified to reduce the amount of restitution by $110.
First Holding:
In calculating restitution a court need not ascertain the exact amount of loss, and a restitution award based upon estimates and averages. A court retains broad discretion to estimate costs incurred by a party seeking restitution.
Authority:
Luis M. v. Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 300, 309-310
Second Holding:
A restitution order is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. The court’s factual findings supporting restitution are reviewed for substantial evidence and a restitution order that is based upon an error in law constitutes an abuse of discretion. A victim’s restitution right to restitution is to be construed broadly and liberally.
Authority:
In re J.L. (2026) 121 Cal.App.5th 355, 361
In re K.F. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 655, 661
Third Holding:
A juvenile court does not abuse its discretion if there is a factual and rational basis for the amount of restitution ordered. The court may use any rational method of fixing the amount of restitution, provided it is reasonably calculated to make the victim whole, and provided it is consistent with the purpose of rehabilitation.
There is no requirement the restitution order be limited to the exact amount of the loss in which the defendant is actually found culpable, nor is there any requirement the order reflect the amount of damages that might be recoverable in a civil action. Nonetheless, a juvenile court must use a rational method of calculation and must rely on facts found by a preponderance of the evidence to make the victim whole.
Authority:
In re J.L. (2026) 121 Cal.App.5th 355, 361
In re Alexander A. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 847, 853, 855-856
In re S.O. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1094, 1102
Fourth Holding:
Restitution hearings are intended to be informal, and Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 does not, by its terms, require any particular kind of proof. A prima facie showing of loss may be based on the victim’s testimony. Once the victim makes a prima facie showing of economic losses incurred as a result of the minor’s delinquent acts, the burden shifts to the minor to disprove the amount of the losses claimed by the victim.
Authority:
People v. Weatherton (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 676, 684
In re J.L. (2026) 121 Cal.App.5th 355, 362
In re S.O. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1094, 1102
People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26
Fifth Holding:
Conflicts and even testimony that is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the trier of fact to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends. The minor argues that the victim’s testimony was sometimes internally inconsistent; however, inconsistencies and conflicts in the evidence go to credibility of witnesses and weight of the evidence, which are matters for the trial court.
Authority:
People v. Mumin (2023) 15 Cal.5th 176, 202
In re S.A. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1149