P. v. Briceno CA2/1

Filed 7/12/13 P. v. Briceno CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B242110

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA034110) v.

RAUL BRICENO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gregory A. Dohi, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Anthony D. Zinnanti and Anthony D. Zinnanti for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Michael C. Keller, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ——————————

SUMMARY Appellant Raul Briceno appeals from a postjudgment order denying his motion to vacate a victim restitution order. We conclude that Briceno has failed to present a justiciable controversy. BACKGROUND In May 2000 Briceno entered a plea of no contest and was convicted of one count each of kidnapping and robbery, with an admission that a principal was armed during the commission of the robbery. Briceno was sentenced to 7 years, 8 months in state prison, and ordered to pay restitution ―pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4[, subdivision] (f),1 in the amount of [$]700,000[ ] joint and severally with all co-defendant‘s [sic] to the victim, Armored Transport.‖ In October 2003, the victim of the crime, AT Systems West, Inc. (AT Systems), filed a civil action against Briceno and his codefendants for unspecified damages for, among other things, theft, embezzlement and misappropriation. AT Systems claimed the defendants had stolen $1,000,672.11. AT Systems alleged that, ―[a]lthough an insurance claim was made and much of the outstanding loss was paid with insurance proceeds, [AT Systems] was required to pay a $100,000[ ] deductible.‖ Purportedly, AT Systems‘s civil action against Briceno and his codefendants was subsequently settled on terms not disclosed in the appellate record, and dismissed. In February 2012, after his release from prison and discharge from parole, Briceno filed a motion ―for an order modifying restitution‖ pursuant to civil settlement. Briceno asked the court to discharge the entire 2000 restitution order, which had grown to over $905,000 with accumulated interest.2 A hearing on the motion began on February 16,