People v. Jones CA1/1

Filed 10/30/14 P. v. Jones CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A140504 v. LAMONT WILLIAM JONES, JR., (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCUKCRCR1270290) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Lamont William Jones, Jr., appeals from an order requiring him to pay more than $200,000 in victim restitution to cover medical bills of a man he criminally assaulted. Both he and respondent agree that the amount of restitution was incorrectly calculated, but they disagree on the appropriate remedy. We reverse the restitution award and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Jones, a transient, was charged with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1))1 in connection with an attack on another transient with a metal pipe on October 29, 2012, in Ukiah. The victim was hospitalized with multiple facial fractures and incurred significant medical bills. After jury selection began in August 2013, Jones agreed to a plea deal. He pleaded guilty to the assault charge and admitted allegations that he inflicted great bodily

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

1

injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and had suffered two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). He also agreed to a nine-year prison term, with execution of sentence suspended and a grant of three years’ probation. Before Jones entered his plea, the trial court informed him he would be ordered to pay restitution to his victim but would be entitled to a hearing on the amount. On September 13, 2013, Jones was sentenced under the terms of the plea agreement. As for restitution, the prosecution provided a declaration from the victim requesting $203,222.58 in restitution, described as the amount “Paid by . . . Medi-Cal,”2 along with supporting documentation. Defense counsel said he wanted to research the issue of restitution, and the trial court scheduled a separate restitution hearing. In advance of the hearing, Jones filed a restitution memorandum arguing that he should not have to pay the victim’s medical expenses because he and the victim were covered by Medi-Cal and the victim did not incur any actual loss. At a short restitution hearing on November 15, the parties agreed there was no dispute about “the amount of the medical bills,” but they disagreed whether their Medi-Cal coverage absolved Jones of his duty to pay restitution in that amount. The court took the matter under submission. Three days later, on November 18, the court issued a written restitution order rejecting Jones’s argument that he was entitled to an offset in restitution because both he and the victim were covered by Medi-Cal. The court set restitution “at the amount shown by the evidence or $203,222.58.” The court directed the district attorney to “prepare a form of order reflecting that amount,” but it appears no such order was prepared.