People v. Jaquith CA1/5

Filed 9/15/14 P. v. Jaquith CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, A140430

v. (Napa County Super. Ct. Nos. CR162886, MICHAEL R. JAQUITH, CR164745, CR164885)

Defendant and Appellant. ______________________________________/

Michael R. Jaquith pled no contest to robbery (Pen. Code, § 211),1 methamphetamine possession (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377), receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), and exhibiting a deadly weapon (§ 417, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted various sentencing enhancements. The trial court sentenced Jaquith to state prison and awarded $299 in victim restitution pursuant to section 1202.4. Of that amount, $100 was for the victim’s lost wages and transportation to court. Jaquith appeals, contending insufficient evidence supports $100 of the court’s award of victim restitution. We disagree and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The facts are taken from the probation report.

1 Unless noted, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1

The victim was riding his bicycle on Soscal Avenue in Napa when a SUV stopped in front of him and a man — later identified as Jaquith — got out, approached the victim with a knife in his hand, and demanded his bike and backpack. The backpack contained the victim’s homework and a new iPhone 5. Frightened, the victim gave the bike and backpack to Jaquith. Napa police officers found Jaquith with the knife, the victim’s bike and backpack, methamphetamine, and a stolen laptop computer. Officers arrested Jaquith and returned the victim’s backpack and bike. The victim’s iPhone was not found. Jaquith pled no contest to robbery (§ 211), methamphetamine possession (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377), receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), and exhibiting a deadly weapon (§ 417, subd. (a)(1)). He admitted various sentencing enhancements. The probation officer recommended $299 in victim restitution. The probation report stated the victim sought “restitution for the loss of an iPhone 5 cell phone, cell phone cover, lost wages and transportation . . . [in] the following amounts: iPhone 5: $250.00; $169.00 to cover the cost of the new iPhone, $30.00 to replace the cell phone case and $100.00 to cover transportation. The victim confirmed the iPhone originally cost him $250.00 and $169.00 to replace it. Therefore, restitution in the amount of $299.00 will be recommended ($169.00 iPhone placement, $100.00 transportation, and $30.00 iPhone case).” At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel objected to the claim for $100, stating: “I don’t know what that means, but I’d submit that the Court should not impose a hundred dollars for transportation.” The prosecutor responded: “I think that’s what [the victim] is asking for in terms of his lost wages and his transportation for events regarding this issue. He did have to come to court and testify. . . . I don’t think $100 for his lost wages and transportation is excessive. He likely missed time from work for this. He had to go out and replace his phone that was stolen and never recovered, so I think that the [$]200 and $99 is appropriate for the victim.” Then defense counsel said, “I’d submit that’s not [a] . . . direct economic loss and it’s not compensable in this proceeding. I ask the Court to strike it.”