People v. Westin CA2/4

Filed 10/9/13 P. v. Westin CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B247068

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA061160) v.

BRUCE WESTIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elden S. Fox, Judge. Affirmed. Murray A. Rosenberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Bruce Westin appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion to modify his restitution and to reduce his felony conviction to a misdemeanor. We affirm. As we have summarized in numerous prior opinions in this case, appellant was convicted by jury of committing vandalism causing damage over $400 (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)), and his conviction was affirmed on appeal.1 (People v. Westin (Aug. 18, 2008, B202964) [nonpub. opn.].) The evidence at trial established that appellant was involved in an ownership dispute related to a duplex in which he was living. In February 2006, Frederick Nitowski, the owner, began proceedings to evict appellant. During these proceedings, appellant threatened that the apartment was not going to be worth anything when he was done. In June 2006, after obtaining an eviction order from the court, Nitowski discovered that appellant had severely damaged the unit. At the time of trial, the damage to the premises was determined to be $71,329. At a later restitution hearing, the court ordered appellant to reimburse the victim in the amount of $94,547.48. This restitution order was affirmed on appeal. (People v. Westin (Sept. 30, 2008, B204594) [nonpub. opn.].) The trial court subsequently denied without prejudice appellant’s motion to modify the restitution order, advising appellant that he needed more information, such as the insurance policy. We affirmed the trial court’s order. (People v. Westin (June 23, 2009, B213004) [nonpub. opn.].) On November 19, 2012, appellant filed a motion to modify restitution pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(1), and to reduce his felony to a misdemeanor, relying on sections 17, subdivision (b), and 1203.4. Appellant contended that the property he vandalized had been willed to his mother but taken