People v. Frias

Annotate this Case

Frias pleaded no contest to stealing a 2001 Chevrolet Tahoe, with 200,000 miles on it and no dents, scratches, or damage before the theft. After the theft, there was damage to the bumper, side, grille, and other parts of the car. A shop estimated repair at $8,385.04. Frias opposed this estimate and proposed $7,025.21, which was a later estimate from the same shop but without using original GM parts. The court of appeal affirmed an order of restitution for $8,385.04 Restitution should be based on the amount of loss the victim claims and should “fully reimburse” the victim for every economic loss the defendant’s criminal conduct caused (Pen. Code 1202.4(f)). The trial court had the discretion to determine the owner was entitled to original manufacturer parts rather than aftermarket parts. It was Frias’s burden to show otherwise. Frias’s counsel suggested there might be zero quality difference between original and aftermarket parts, but the court was free to reject this claim, which no evidence supported.

Download PDF

Filed 10/6/21 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, B309052 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA078019) v. GABRIEL FRIAS, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David E. Hizami, Judge. Affirmed. Jolene Larimore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Heidi Salerno, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________ After Gabriel Frias stole and damaged a 2001 Chevrolet Tahoe, the trial court ordered restitution for the owner to fix it. The court figured the sum using the cost of original parts, not aftermarket parts. We affirm. Frias pleaded no contest to stealing the Tahoe. The Tahoe had 200,000 miles on it and had no dents, scratches, or damage before the theft. Afterwards, there was damage to the bumper, side, grille, and to other parts of the car. A shop estimated repair at $8,385.04. Frias opposed this estimate and proposed $7,025.21, which was a later estimate from the same shop, but without using original General Motors parts. The shop owner said his estimates depended on whether they are for insurance companies, which demand original manufacturer parts. The shop did not calculate other estimates on this basis. The second estimate was for $7,025.21. The $1,359.83 difference from $8,385.04 apparently stemmed from the lower cost of aftermarket parts. The record does not explain who manufactured the aftermarket parts, whether they had a warranty, or anything about them. The court ordered restitution on the basis of the original estimate: the $8,385.04 sum. Frias appeals, claiming the court abused its discretion by accepting the $8,385.04 estimate. This argument is incorrect. The California Constitution requires courts to order restitution when a crime victim suffers a loss. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b)(13)(B).) Statutory provisions say restitution is to be based on the amount of loss the victim claims and should “fully reimburse” the victim for every economic loss the defendant’s criminal conduct caused. (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f).) In keeping with the framers’ unequivocal intent, courts 2 broadly and liberally construe these statutory provisions in victims’ favor. (People v. Stanley (2012) 54 Cal.4th 734, 737.) The trial court had discretion to determine the owner was entitled to original manufacturer parts rather than aftermarket parts. It was Frias’s burden to show otherwise. Frias, for instance, could have offered evidence the damaged parts themselves had not been original, but were aftermarket. (Cf. People v. Grandpierre (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 111, 115 [defendants have the burden of disproving the victim’s claim of loss].) There was no evidence like that. Frias’s counsel suggested there might be zero quality difference between original and aftermarket parts, but the court was free to reject this claim, which no evidence supported. The court could presume that aftermarket parts can vary in quality and that, commonly, you get what you pay for. (Cf. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 9884.9, subd. (c) [requiring repair estimates to disclose whether replacement parts will be original or aftermarket].) DISPOSITION The order is affirmed. WILEY, J. We concur: STRATTON, Acting P. J. OHTA, J.* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. * 3

Primary Holding

Court of appeal affirms a restitution order based on repairs using original, rather than aftermarket parts for a vehicle damaged when it was stolen.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.