People v. Mendez CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Nov 19, 2024 No. B332055Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding restitution for the replacement cost of a damaged cell phone, as the defendant failed to meet his burden of proof to establish an offset value for the broken device after the prosecution established a prima facie case.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in its valuation of the victim's damaged cell phone for restitution purposes.
Whether the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant regarding the restitution amount.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The purpose of a restitution order is to make the victim whole for his or her loss, not to give the victim a windfall.”

“Once the victim has [i.e., the People have] made a prima facie showing of his or her loss, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the amount of the loss is other than that claimed by the victim.”

“Defendant failed to rebut that prima facie case—that is, he failed to show he was entitled to a $399 offset for the value of Cruz’s broken cell phone.”

Filed 11/19/24 P. v. Mendez CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B332055

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA112269-02) v.

JUAN CARLOS SANCHEZ MENDEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Darrell S. Mavis, Judge. Affirmed. Ashwini Mate, 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, Chung L. Mar and Lauren N. Guber, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Juan Carlos Sanchez Mendez appeals from the trial court’s $2,114.85 restitution award which consisted of $920 for stolen cash and $1,194.85 for replacement of a broken cell phone. He contends the court’s restitution valuation for the broken cell phone was error and the court improperly shifted the burden of proof to him to establish the correct restitution valuation. We affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

Defendant pleaded no contest to misdemeanor battery. (Pen. Code, § 242.) The trial court placed defendant on summary probation for one year on various terms and conditions, including the condition that he pay restitution to the victim, Jose Cruz, in an amount to be determined at a hearing. Cruz apparently submitted a Victim Restitution Request for $2,420, consisting of $1,000 for stolen cash and $1,420 for replacement of his damaged cell phone. At the first of three restitution hearings, Cruz testified that in December 2021 he purchased an iPhone 13 Pro Max cell phone for around $1,300. On April 14, 2022, Cruz was assaulted. During the assault, $920 was taken from his wallet and his cell phone was broken. Cruz went to an Apple Store in Pasadena to have his cell phone repaired. He was told the cell phone could not be repaired, but he could get a credit for the cell phone’s value against the price of a new cell phone if he had a receipt. He “guess[ed]” that

People v. Mendez CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B332055

JUAN CARLOS SANCHEZ MENDEZ,

I. INTRODUCTION

II. BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III. DISCUSSION

C. Analysis

IV. DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM, J.

AI Brief