People v. Thomson CA2/2

Filed 3/19/14 P. v. Thomson CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B246367

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA085110) v.

PHILIP STUART THOMSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Thomas R. Sokolov, Judge. Affirmed.

Burton C. Jacobson for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

Appellant Philip Stuart Thomson pled no contest to one count of theft of services (electrical) over $950 (Pen. Code, § 489, subd. (b)), and one count of possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) (Health & Safety Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). He was placed on probation for a period of three years. Appellant was ordered to pay the victim, Southern California Edison, restitution in the amount of $5,481.71 ($5,000 in stolen electricity plus $481.71 in investigative costs). Appellant’s sole contention on appeal is that “there was no basis for the court to make a finding that restitution should be $5,481.71; or any sum at all.” We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND At the contested restitution hearing, the prosecution presented the testimony of Craig Ashley (Ashley), an investigator for Southern California Edison, who testified that the electrical power to appellant’s house was disconnected on August 18, 2011 for nonpayment of bills. On July 3, 2012, in connection with an unrelated police investigation, another investigator with Southern California Edison discovered that appellant had been stealing electricity from a neighbor’s house by attaching a bypass device to the power line. Because appellant tapped into the power line before it reached an electrical meter, there was no way to notice an increase in power usage at the neighbor’s residence. Southern California Edison estimated the amount of stolen power based on appellant’s previous usage, called a daily average, multiplied by the 320 days between August 18, 2011, and July 3, 2012, which totaled $5,216.21.1 Ashley testified that the average customer uses the same amount of power every month. On cross-examination, Ashley admitted that Southern California Edison did not know the exact date appellant began tapping his neighbor’s power line.