Page 1
Restitution May Include Costs of Repairing Auto a Month Before It Was Totaled—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A crime victim whose stolen car was totaled by the defendant was entitled to receive from him $6,000 for repairs to the vehicle effected a month before the offense took place, Div. One of the First District Court of Appeal has held.
Justice Monique Langhorne Wilson authored the opinion, filed Monday and not certified for publication.
The defendant, Ralph Singletary, pled guilty to evading an officer. Under the plea bargain, he agreed to pay restitution to Luis Quintanar whose autophile was stolen and was demolished in the course of Singletary and others attempting to evade sheriff’s deputies in September 2023.
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Murlene Randle ordered Singletary to pay $6,000 in repair costs incurred in August 2023, plus $1,000 for the value of property damaged in the vehicle and $162.81 in rideshare costs. On appeal, Singletary contested the $6,000.
Supreme Court Opinion
Langhorne Wilson noted that under the California Supreme Court’s 1999 decision in People v. Birkett, Randle could have ordered Singletary the full value of the automobile even though it had been paid to Quintanar by his insurer. Then-Justice Marvin Baxter (now retired) said in that decision that the law-breaker must “make full restitution for all losses his crime had caused, and that such reparation should go entirely to the individual...the offender had directly wronged, regardless of that victim’s reimbursement from other sources.”
As to the $6,000 payment that was ordered, Langhorne Wilson said:
“Singletary asserts that the amount the victim’s insurance company deemed the fair market value necessarily included compensation for the repairs the victim made prior to the offense. Assuming that is correct, it does not follow that the restitution order paid the victim ‘an additional $6,000,’ as Singletary asserts. The victim suffered the loss of his vehicle, which included the benefit of having spent $6,000 on repairs described by the trial court as being intended to make the vehicle long lasting. The victim was entitled to the replacement cost of like property, which, presumably, would take into consideration the costs the victim incurred in repairing his vehicle before the crime.”
Distinction Drawn
She continued:
“The trial court did not, in fact, award the victim both the fair market value of the car and the cost to repair the car. Singletary’s position conflates the insurance payment with the restitution payment, but they are distinct. Restitution must cover the full amount of the loss caused by the crime, paying no regard to any insurance payment the victim received….If the court had ordered restitution of $18,812.25 ($12,812.25 fair market value plus $6,000 in preoffense repair costs), our analysis might be different. But that is not the issue presented here.
“While the victim requested $6,000 for preoffense repair costs, he could have requested, and would have been entitled to, the cost to replace his car in its preoffense condition—an amount the insurance company valued at nearly $13,000.”
The case is People v. Singletary, A170711.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company