People v. Voroshuck CA

Filed 4/22/14 P. v. Voroshuck CA NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H039524 (Santa Cruz County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. F21541)

v.

ANTHONY MICHAEL VOROSHUCK,

Defendant and Appellant.

In this appeal, Anthony Voroshuck (appellant) challenges a victim restitution order in the amount of $6,500 that was entered on April 9, 2013, following a formal restitution hearing. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the restitution hearing. Background On July 30, 2012, appellant pleaded no contest to one count of arson (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (d).)1 Subsequently, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on formal probation for three years on various terms and condition. The court ordered that appellant pay victim restitution to three victims, none of which appellant

1 According to the probation officer's report, appellant set fire to a car owned by a Mr. Sickler, who at the time of the arson incident was having an affair with appellant's wife. Not only was Mr. Sickler's car damaged, but three other vehicles and a motorcycle, as well as a wood fence and carport, were damaged.

challenges here. However, the court reserved jurisdiction with respect to restitution to Mr. Sickler in the event that appellant challenged the amount being sought. The parties returned to court on January 15, 2013. The purpose of the hearing was to determine if an agreement on the amount of restitution that appellant owed to Mr. Sickler had been reached. The prosecutor presented the court with documentation to support a claim of $3,795 in restitution for Mr. Sickler's damaged Mercedes and $500 for equipment that was in the car when the car was damaged, for a total of $4,295. Defense counsel told the court that appellant had bought Mr. Sickler a $5,000 Toyota Camry a month after the arson event, and therefore, his client disputed the amount of restitution owed for the Mercedes. Ultimately, the court ordered that appellant owed $4,295 in restitution for the Mercedes and equipment that was in the car, but set the matter for a hearing to determine whether Mr. Sickler agreed that he had received satisfaction of that restitution amount. At the next court hearing the prosecution told the court that Mr. Sickler disputed that appellant had bought him a car. Accordingly, the court set a restitution hearing to determine the amount of restitution to be paid to Mr. Sickler. At the restitution hearing, the prosecution asked the court if it could submit several affidavits in support of the restitution amount; the court allowed the prosecutor to proceed with affidavits rather than present live witnesses. Defense counsel submitted a photocopy of a check made payable to one Irene Davis in the amount of $750, plus a cashier's check also made payable to Irene Davis.2 A notation written on the photocopy of the back of the cashier's check reads "Sold the Toyota Camry to (1999) Anthony Voroshuck for 5000.00 car in good condition. The car paid in full." A second notation reads, "I signed the pink slip to Mr.