People v. Saragoza CA3

Filed 4/3/14 P. v. Saragoza CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C074012

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF124244)

v.

JAMES MICHAEL SARAGOZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant James Michael Saragoza pled no contest to first degree burglary (Pen. Code,1 § 459) in exchange for dismissal of a violent felony, an infraction, and a stipulated low term of two years in state prison. The trial court sentenced defendant accordingly and reserved jurisdiction over victim restitution. The court ultimately ordered defendant

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

to pay the victim $2,805 in restitution, which included $1,655 in relocation expenses and $1,150 for property stolen but not returned. Defendant appeals, challenging only the court’s order to pay relocation expenses. We uphold the order and, accordingly, affirm the judgment. FACTAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Crime On October 19, 2012, the victim returned home to find her back door open and defendant inside her home. Defendant fled with some of the victim’s property, but left his backpack behind. The victim pursued defendant, caught up with him as he tried to hide her property in the bushes, and demanded that he return her property. Defendant ran away. The victim retrieved her property from the bushes, returned home, and called the police. A search of defendant’s backpack revealed defendant’s photo identification, from which the victim identified defendant. When located and questioned, defendant denied burglarizing the victim’s home, claiming someone had stolen his backpack. Later defendant admitted to the conduct described by the victim. Restitution The probation report attached the victim’s written request for restitution, which included relocation expenses of $1,200 (for breaking her lease), explaining that she was a single mother and the burglary had caused her to be afraid to live in the house alone with her very young sons, who were also afraid. Defense counsel objected to restitution for moving expenses and requested a hearing, arguing that relocation expenses such as those claimed by the victim were specifically required by section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3)(I) (section 1202.4(f)(3)(I)) to be verified as necessary by law enforcement. The People agreed a hearing should be held and the court scheduled a restitution hearing. At the hearing, district attorney investigator Ray Antar testified that he interviewed the victim many months after the burglary. The victim claimed the burglary had turned her life “upside down,” causing a loss in her sense of security and privacy.