People v. Arrellano CA5

Filed 7/10/14 P. v. Arrellano CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F066951 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF139481B) v.

GREGORIO ENRIQUE ARRELLANO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Charles R. Brehmer, Judge. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen McKenna and Amanda D. Cary, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Detjen, J.

After a jury convicted appellant Gregorio Enrique Arellano of multiple felonies, and the court imposed a prison term of four years eight months and ordered appellant to pay victim restitution “in an amount to be determined by the Probation Department at the direction of the Court.” On appeal, appellant’s sole contention is that the court improperly delegated to the probation department the authority to impose victim restitution. We affirm. DISCUSSION1 Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f) (section 1202.4(f)) provides, in relevant part:

“[I]n every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct, the court shall require that the defendant make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount established by court order, based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim or victims or any other showing to the court. If the amount of loss cannot be ascertained at the time of sentencing, the restitution order shall include a provision that the amount shall be determined at the direction of the court.” (Italics added.) Appellant first challenges the court’s order that the amount of victim restitution be determined by the probation department on statutory grounds. He contends section 1202.4(f) “requires the trial court, and not the Probation Department, to impose restitution if the amount of restitution is unknown at the time of sentencing.” He argues that victim restitution is often determined in contested “fact finding hearings” of a sort the probation department is “not equipped” to conduct, and that the “delega[tion]” of the “imposition of restitution” to the probation department deprives appellant of his “right to confront the prosecution evidence and present his own evidence.” We disagree.2