Legal Opinion

People v. Santori

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 18, 2015No. B262306PublishedCited by 5 opinions

[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*]

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

FLIER, J.

— We affirm the trial court’s restitution order requiring defendant Anthony R. Santori pay the City of Palmdale $18,878.23 in restitution for 32 incidents of graffiti. This case is distinguishable from Luis M. v. Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 300 [173 Cal.Rptr.3d 37, 326 P.3d 969] (Luis M.) in which our Supreme Court held that no factual nexus existed between the minor’s conduct and the juvenile court’s restitution order. Whereas in Luis M. the restitution order was based only on the average cost for graffiti remediation, here the People presented evidence of defendant’s…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People v. GiordanoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  2. People v. BirkettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  3. People v. MillardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  4. Luis M. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. People v. Kyle T.California Court of Appeal · 2017
  2. People v. Hurtado, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  3. People v. AguilarCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  4. People v. Altieri CA1/5California Court of Appeal · 2016
  5. People v. HurtadoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2019

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API