People v. Sorenson CA6

Filed 6/19/14 P. v. Sorenson CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H039803 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. B1261608)

v.

JOHN ANDERS SORENSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant John Anders Sorenson pleaded no contest to felony hit and run resulting in injury or death (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a), (b)(1). On appeal, he challenges only the amount of the restitution awarded to the victim. Anticipating the People's waiver response, defendant contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the restitution hearing when his attorney stipulated to the amount requested by the victim. We agree with the second point and must therefore reverse the order and remand the matter for a new restitution hearing. Background Defendant was charged by felony complaint with (1) theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), (2) failure to stop at the scene of an accident (hit and run) resulting in great bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 20001, subds. (a), (b)(1); Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 1203, subd. (e)(3)), and (3) driving with a license revoked for a conviction of driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 14601.2,

subd. (a); Veh. Code, §§ 23152, 23153.). The complaint contained the further allegation that defendant had suffered a prior conviction of driving under the influence (DUI) with three prior DUI convictions, and that he had served a prison term for the prior conviction. (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, 23550, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).) The charges arose when defendant, while driving a stolen car, struck and severely injured the victim, who was on his bicycle. Defendant then left the scene. Defendant pleaded no contest to the hit-and-run count, and in exchange the remaining charges were dismissed. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation, conditioned on service of one year in county jail, concurrent with a prison term he was already serving. The court entered a general order of restitution, pending the victim's decision whether to request a specific restitution amount. After receiving the victim's statements of loss, the probation officer recommended an order of restitution totaling $226,832.47, representing bills for the victim's extensive medical treatment, loss of income, an unspecified medical expense for the victim's wife, and a cost pertaining to the victim's bicycle. At the ensuing hearing defense counsel represented that defendant was "not contesting the amount" of restitution. Accordingly, the court ordered defendant to pay the victim that amount in restitution. Defendant brought this timely appeal, challenging only the restitution award. Discussion Consistent with article I, section 28, of the California Constitution,1 Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f),2 requires the trial court to award restitution to a victim