People v. Freel CA2/6

Filed 12/4/24 P. v. Freel CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B330171 (Super. Ct. No. 1450158) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

BRIAN C. FREEL,

Defendant and Respondent.

The Santa Barbara County District Attorney appeals from a postjudgment order denying his request for reconsideration of an interim order reducing by nearly $500,000 the amount of victim restitution owed by Brian C. Freel. The district attorney contends: (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the restitution order because it did so after Freel had completed his state prison sentence, and (2) the reduction was not supported by substantial evidence. We agree with the district attorney’s first contention, and reverse. We do not resolve his second contention.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In December 2014, Freel pleaded no contest to second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code,1 §§ 459, 460, subd. (b)), possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)), possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), and possession of burglary tools (§ 466), and admitted allegations that he took property valued in excess of $65,000 and $200,000 during the burglary (former § 12022.6, subd. (a)(1) & (a)(2)). He also admitted that he had violated his probation in a previous case. The following March, the trial court sentenced Freel to six years four months in state prison, and ordered him to pay $502,376 in victim restitution. Freel did not appeal from the judgment. After Freel completed his sentence, the court placed the matter on calendar because it “had heard [that] Mr. Freel . . . was of the view that the restitution matter was not properly handled.” At a subsequent hearing, the court stated its belief that “the weight of the evidence doesn’t support the [$]500,000 in restitution.” In an April 2021 order, the court granted Freel’s motion to modify the 2015 restitution order and reduced victim restitution to $2,500. The order specified that the court would “retain jurisdiction to hold a further hearing to adjust the restitution award (if appropriate).” In August 2022, the district attorney moved the trial court to reconsider the order modifying restitution. The court declined to do so at a November hearing. The district attorney moved for reconsideration of the restitution modification order again in April 2023. The court