People v. Ramirez CA4/3

Filed 4/29/14 P. v. Ramirez CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G048396

v. (Super. Ct. No. 10HF0027)

JAIME ZAMORA RAMIREZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kazuharu Makino, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Edward J. Haggerty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Merissa Bejarano, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

This appeal comes to us following a remand for resentencing during which the trial court ordered appellant to pay $5,685 in restitution. Appellant contends there is insufficient evidence to support the order, and we agree. Because the prosecution failed to provide sufficient documentation to justify the court’s restitution order, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In July 2011, appellant was convicted of raping Sonia C. and Leticia A., as well as sexually penetrating Sonia with a foreign object. Pursuant to the One Strike Law, the jury found true allegations appellant victimized multiple women and committed the crimes against Sonia during the course of a burglary. Additionally, the trial court found appellant had suffered a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a) and the Three Strikes law.1 At the sentencing hearing, the court sentenced appellant to multiple life terms in prison. The prosecution did not request restitution on behalf of the victims at that time. We affirmed appellant’s convictions on appeal but reversed the true finding on the prior serious felony allegation for insufficient evidence and vacated appellant’s sentence. (People v. Ramirez (Dec. 18, 2012, G045950) [nonpub. opn.].) On remand, the prosecution elected not to retry appellant on the allegation, and the matter proceeded for resentencing. At that hearing, the prosecution moved for restitution on behalf of the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (the Board). In support of the motion, the prosecution presented two request forms it had received from the Board, one on behalf of each victim. The forms – entitled “Request[s] for Restitution” – indicate the Board paid $2,935 to Sonia and $2,750 to Leticia for medical treatment and mental health expenses they incurred in connection with this case. Although the request forms include the date of the underlying crimes and the date the forms were submitted to the