People v. Wright CA3

Filed 10/15/13 P. v. Wright CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (El Dorado) ----

THE PEOPLE, C072372

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. P10CRF0287)

v.

RANDAL LOY WRIGHT,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Randal Loy Wright pleaded no contest in Merced County to theft or unauthorized taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and fraudulent removal of a leased vehicle (Pen. Code, § 504a).1 The trial court placed defendant on three years’ felony probation and deferred any finding on victim restitution. Defendant was granted a certificate of probable cause and appealed, asserting the trial court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his motion to withdraw the plea. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of conviction in an unpublished opinion.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

Defendant’s probation was transferred to El Dorado County pursuant to section 1203.9 while the appeal was pending. Defendant requested a hearing to dispute the restitution amount. Following a contested hearing, the court imposed $9,804 in victim restitution. Defendant appeals, contending the restitution award is an abuse of discretion and a 10 percent administrative fee was improperly included in the clerk’s minutes. We modify the restitution order and remand for the court to impose the administrative fee. BACKGROUND Defendant leased a Mercedes-Benz automobile, but fell behind on the payments and returned the car to the dealership. He later took the car from the dealership, had the tracking device removed, and relocated it to Mexico. At his sentencing hearing, defense counsel informed the court that the car was later brought back and returned to the dealership. Mercedes-Benz Financial submitted a restitution claim form, signed under penalty of perjury, claiming $9,800.04 in restitution. Attached to the form was a document titled “PAYMENT PLAN,” which an attached e-mail explained was “a breakdown of the deficiency balance.” The payment plan document showed “RENT DUE” of $11,752.45 with a $3,557.58 offset for a total of $8,194.87. The document listed “SALES EXP” of $235, a “DISPO FEE” of $595, and a “LATE CHG” of $50. The document showed a subtotal of $9,074.87, a tax of $725.17, and a total of $9,800.04. The document was admitted at the contested restitution hearing. Defense counsel argued the document was not authenticated and there was “nothing to indicate for what purpose that money is claimed.” Since there was “nothing about damage to the vehicle, nothing about lost equipment from the vehicle, nothing about a diminution in value of the vehicle,” counsel concluded “there’s nothing upon which this Court can reasonably base an order of restitution.”