The People v. McCurtain CA3

Filed 10/3/13 P. v. McCurtain CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Nevada) ----

THE PEOPLE, C073013

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. T120312F2)

v.

CHRISTINA McCURTAIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). On May 2, 2012, R.J. returned home to find that her home had been ransacked. Numerous items had been taken, including jewelry, coins, and keys to two vehicles. R.J. spent that night with a friend. The next morning, R.J. returned home to find that it had been broken into again and items had been taken, including a laptop computer, a television and a pickup truck.

1

On May 17, 2012, J.D. returned home and found a man in his garage. The man fled in a pickup truck which matched the description of the pickup stolen from the R.J.’s home. Numerous items had been taken from J.D.’s home. Police found the truck at a ski resort and arrested defendant Christina McCurtain and David Gish who were in the truck. Defendant entered a plea of guilty to vehicle theft (R.J.’s truck) (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count III), second degree burglary (J.D.) (Pen. Code, § 459; count V), and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a); count VII) in exchange for probation for five years and subject to certain terms and conditions including 180 days in county jail. On September 4, 2012, the court suspended imposition of sentence and granted probation for a period of five years subject to certain terms and conditions including 180 days in county jail. The court ordered restitution for the benefit of R.J. in the amount of $6,135, plus 10 percent interest, and reserved jurisdiction to order victim restitution to J.D., assuring defense counsel that victim restitution would be joint and several with Gish who was also convicted of offenses arising from the two burglaries. After a restitution hearing on December 19, 2012, the court ordered defendant to pay $50,000 to J.D. J.D., a real estate developer, testified about his losses which included clothing valued at more than $23,000, sports gear worth over $7,000, electronics worth over $5,000, and household items valued at more than $10,000. The home also sustained damage in the amount of $19,000. Defense counsel argued that J.D.’s claim of over $66,000 was unreasonable in view of discovery (pages of a police report) wherein J.D. had claimed $50,000 in restitution. After a recess, the court recounted that in chambers, the prosecutor represented that J.D. would be “satisfied” with $50,000. The court found that J.D. was entitled to the $66,000 plus based on the evidence presented but that it was charitable of J.D. to take less. The court ordered defendant’s grant of probation modified to include $50,000 in restitution to J.D., “joint and several” with Gish. Defendant appeals.