People v. Valdez CA2/6

Filed 12/11/24 P. v. Valdez CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B333835 (Super. Ct. No. 21CR08280) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

ISAAC RICHARD VALDEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Isaac Richard Valdez appeals from the restitution orders entered after he pleaded guilty to sexual battery of an unlawfully restrained person (Pen. Code,1 § 243.4, subd. (a)) and annoying a child under the age of 18 (§ 647.6). The trial court ordered Valdez to serve three years of formal probation, including 180 days in county jail. It also ordered him to pay over $1.2 million in restitution to Jane Doe and her mother. Valdez contends: (1) the restitution ordered for Doe’s future mental health counseling was either unsupported by the evidence

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code.

or miscalculated, and (2) the restitution ordered for Doe’s past economic losses should have been awarded to her mother and should be reduced to conform to the evidence presented at the restitution hearing. The Attorney General agrees with Valdez’s contentions. We do too, vacate the trial court’s restitution order, and remand. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In April 2022, prosecutors charged Valdez with two counts of committing lewd or lascivious acts on a child (§ 288, subd. (a)). Six months later, they agreed to dismiss those charges if Valdez pleaded guilty to sexual battery and annoying a child, served a three-year probation term, and paid restitution to his victims. Valdez took the plea, and agreed that the trial court could “consider [the] facts underlying [the] dismissed counts [when] determin[ing] restitution.” (See People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, 758.) Prior to the restitution hearing Doe provided a victim impact statement describing how Valdez’s offenses affected her. The statement also set forth Doe’s belief that the abuse she endured would require her to receive mental health counseling for the next 40-plus years. She claimed that counseling would cost $1,500 per month. Doe attempted to take her own life the week before the restitution hearing and was unable to attend. At the hearing Doe’s mother provided documents showing that Doe had been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression after Valdez abused her. She bought Doe a therapy dog to help with her panic attacks. Doe’s mother said she paid for counseling for both herself and Doe. Documents she provided to the court showed that Doe’s