A California court has upheld a restitution order requiring Johnathan Bordelon to pay approximately $7,000 to a victim for a car he stole and crashed. This ruling, made by the California Court of Appeal on November 4, 2026, affects Bordelon and the victim, who lost her vehicle due to his criminal actions. The decision is significant as it clarifies how courts determine restitution amounts in theft cases.

The case, People v. Bordelon (docket number A174604), stems from an incident on September 25, 2022, when Bordelon carjacked a 2012 Honda Civic EX at gunpoint from a driver and her passenger. After stealing the car, he also committed a robbery at a convenience store, leading to a high-speed police chase that ended when he crashed the stolen vehicle. Bordelon was charged with multiple felonies, including carjacking and robbery.

In July 2024, Bordelon pled no contest to one count of second-degree robbery and admitted to using a firearm during the crime. He received an eight-year prison sentence as part of a plea deal. Following his sentencing, the prosecution sought restitution for the victim's car, which was deemed a total loss after the crash. The prosecution argued for $15,000 in restitution, citing the cost of replacing the vehicle. However, Bordelon contended that the car's value was only $3,720 due to its high mileage and pre-existing damage.

The trial court held a restitution hearing in June 2025. It rejected the victim's request for $15,000 and Bordelon's proposed amount of $3,720. Instead, the court determined that the fair market value of the car was $6,958, which it deemed appropriate for restitution. This decision was based on evidence presented, including Kelley Blue Book listings for similar vehicles.

The court ruled, "There was a rational and factual basis for the restitution award," emphasizing that the victim's car had market value before it was stolen and crashed. The judges noted that the victim was driving the car immediately before the theft and that it was operable at the time. The court found substantial evidence to support its decision to set the restitution at the low end of the fair market value range.

Bordelon challenged the court's ruling, arguing that the car's actual value was lower than the court's assessment. He claimed that the vehicle's condition, including high mileage and prior damage, should have led to a lower valuation. However, the court stated that Bordelon's characterization of the car's condition was not conclusively established and that the trial court was not obligated to accept his valuation method.

Additionally, Bordelon argued that the court should have deducted the salvage value of the car from the restitution award. However, the court found this argument without merit, explaining that the victim was required to replace the car and that the restitution amount reflected the cost of obtaining a similar vehicle.

The court concluded, "The primary case on which [Bordelon] relies is distinguishable," noting that the victim in this case did not keep the damaged vehicle. The court affirmed the restitution order, underscoring that it aimed to fully compensate the victim for her loss.

The ruling has implications for future cases involving restitution in theft and robbery scenarios. It clarifies that courts can determine restitution amounts based on fair market value, even if the defendant presents evidence suggesting a lower value. This case may set a precedent for how restitution is calculated in similar circumstances, ensuring that victims receive adequate compensation for their losses.

Looking ahead, Bordelon may have the option to appeal the ruling, although details on any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. There were no related cases pending at this time.