People v. Ruiz CA2/6

Filed 3/27/14 P. v. Ruiz CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B251001 (Super. Ct. No. 1437035) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

FREDDY SANTOS RUIZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Freddy Santos Ruiz appeals a probation restitution order following his no contest plea to receiving stolen property--a motorcycle (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)),1 a misdemeanor, and two counts of resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)), misdemeanors. Ruiz was placed on three years probation and the trial court ordered him to pay $1,492.34 as restitution to the victim. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the monetary restitution. We affirm. FACTS Ernest Johnson owned two motorcycles. On January 15, 2013, they were stolen. On January 19, the police saw Ruiz pushing one of the stolen motorcycles. Ruiz saw the police and ran away. He was subsequently arrested. He pled no contest to possessing stolen property--the motorcycle. The trial court held a restitution hearing.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

Johnson testified that after the stolen motorcycle was returned to him, he noticed substantial damage. He said, "[It] was in such bad shape that it wouldn't kick start." Somebody had spray painted it different colors. The rear tire was bald. The "front fork guard was busted off," and the chain was damaged. Someone had "unbolted the plastic peel," and nuts, bolts and screws were missing. The cost for repairing the damage was $1,492.34. Ruiz testified that as part of his negotiated plea agreement, he "[pled] no contest to being in possession of a stolen motorcycle" and agreed "to pay restitution in this case." He said he found the motorcycle in an alley near a trashcan and thought it was "garbage." While pushing the motorcycle down the street away from the alley, he saw the police, he dropped the motorcycle, and ran away. He was willing to pay only for the damage he caused when he dropped the motorcycle when he spotted the police. The trial court ordered Ruiz to pay restitution in the amount of $1,492.34. It said Ruiz's "dishonesty is so tainted . . . I don't believe anything he said, and I think he was probably the thief." DISCUSSION The Restitution Order Ruiz contends the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to pay $1,492.34 as restitution for the damages to the motorcycle as a probation condition. We disagree. Trial courts have "broad discretion to impose probation conditions to foster rehabilitation and to protect public safety." (People v. Anderson (2010) 50 Cal.4th 19, 26.) Monetary restitution to the crime victim is an "expressly authorized" condition of probation. (Id. at p. 27; § 1203.1.) Here Johnson testified $1,492.34 was required to repair the damages to his motorcycle. The trial court ordered restitution in that amount. Ruiz argues he was convicted of receiving the motorcycle as stolen property, not theft. He claims that: 1) there is no evidence he took the motorcycle on January 15 or caused the damage Johnson claimed; and 2) restitution is limited to losses