Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Johnathan Ramone Bordelon forced a driver and passenger out of a 2012 Honda Civic EX at gunpoint on September 25, 2022, and drove away with their possessions. He later robbed a convenience store at gunpoint, led police on a high-speed chase, and crashed the Civic into a highway median. Charged with several felonies, he pleaded no contest in July 2024 to second degree robbery and a personal-firearm-use enhancement. The negotiated eight-year sentence comprised five years for robbery and three years for the enhancement.
The prosecution subsequently sought restitution for the Civic, which could not be repaired. It submitted a Kelley Blue Book fair-market range of $6,958 to $9,267 and a typical listing price of $8,973, while reporting that the victim sought $15,000 because that was what she spent on a similar replacement. Bordelon proposed $3,720 based on a CARFAX History-Based Value Report, citing mileage, earlier damage, and title and airbag entries. At the June 27, 2025 hearing, the trial court rejected both proposals and adopted $6,958, the low end of the Kelley Blue Book range. It also awarded restitution for other losses that Bordelon did not oppose.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal reviewed the restitution order for abuse of discretion and affirmed. Under Penal Code section 1202.4, restitution must fully reimburse determined economic losses, and stolen or damaged property is valued at the replacement cost of like property or, when possible, the actual repair cost. After a victim makes a prima facie showing of loss, the defendant bears the burden of disproving the claimed amount. The governing question on review was whether a rational and factual basis supported the award, not whether the trial court had to select either party's valuation.
The court found ample support for using the low end of the market range. The victim had been driving the Civic immediately before it was taken, and Bordelon continued operating it during the later robbery and police chase. The Kelley Blue Book evidence addressed vehicles of the same make, model, and year. Although CARFAX showed high mileage and an earlier accident, it described the damage as moderate and did not establish whether repairs had been made. Bordelon's description of the car's pre-crash condition therefore was not conclusively established, and the trial court could reject his valuation method. The opinion also notes that the salvage title was issued after, not before, the crash.
The court separately rejected Bordelon's argument that the award had to be reduced by the Civic's salvage value. It distinguished People v. Sharpe because that victim retained and repaired the damaged vehicle, whereas this victim had to replace hers. Bordelon identified no record evidence that she kept the stolen and crashed car. The court therefore saw no basis to deduct salvage value for property the victim no longer possessed and affirmed the June 27, 2025 restitution order.
Key Takeaways
- A restitution award can rest on the low end of a recognized fair-market range when the record supplies a rational and factual basis for that amount.
- A defendant's alternative valuation does not control merely because it identifies high mileage or earlier damage, particularly when the evidence leaves the vehicle's actual condition unresolved.
- The trial court was not required to accept either the victim's $15,000 replacement expenditure or Bordelon's proposed $3,720 valuation.
- No salvage-value offset was required because the victim had to replace the Civic and the record did not establish that she retained the wrecked vehicle.
- The appellate court affirmed only the challenged restitution ruling; Bordelon did not oppose the additional restitution awarded for other losses.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how California's replacement-cost restitution standard operates when the parties present sharply different valuations for an older vehicle. Informal restitution proceedings and deferential appellate review do not require a trial court to adopt a defendant's preferred adjustment to market-range evidence. The opinion also limits the salvage-value reasoning drawn from Sharpe to materially different circumstances, emphasizing whether the victim retained the damaged property or instead needed a replacement.