People v. Lee CA2/5

Filed 10/10/14 P. v. Lee CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B252810

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA404953) v.

CLIFTON LEE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Clifford Klein, Judge. Affirmed. Evan Charles Greenberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Margaret E. Maxwell, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Corey J. Robins, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________

Defendant Clifton Lee appeals from a restitution order entered after he was convicted of assault (Pen. Code, § 240).1 The trial court ordered defendant to pay $1,271.46 in restitution to reimburse the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (Board). Defendant contends the court erred in ordering restitution without requiring documentation proving the amount owed as mandated by statute (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)(4)(B)). Defendant further contends the matter must be remanded for a new restitution hearing because the court erroneously believed that it lacked discretion to award a reduced amount of restitution. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

After the jury rendered its verdict, the trial court sentenced defendant and set a restitution hearing for November 13, 2013. Defendant said he wanted to be present at the hearing. At the first scheduled restitution hearing, the court found that while defendant said he wanted to be present, he did not appear for the restitution hearing. His attorney said she did not have a phone number for defendant, and was not able to reach him. The court stated it would not issue a bench warrant since defendant had served his time on the case, and it was his choice whether to be present.2 The matter was continued. At the next hearing, defendant still was not present. His attorney said she “guess[ed] [defendant] didn’t really want to be here.” The prosecutor asked for more time to get a “medical statement” from the victim. The matter was again continued twice.