People v. Jeiranian CA2/2

Filed 11/25/14 P. v. Jeiranian CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B251825

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA338994) v.

SAHAK JEIRANIAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Craig J. Mitchell, Judge. Affirmed.

Jolene Larimore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Jonathan J. Kline and Taylor Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

This case is before us once again. A jury convicted appellant Sahak Jeiranian of two counts of felony intentional evasion of cigarette tax (Rev. & Tax Code, § 30480; counts 1 & 2),1 misdemeanor unlicensed cigarette distribution (§ 30149; count 4), misdemeanor possession of false or fraudulent cigarette stamps (§ 30473.5; count 5), and misdemeanor possession of unstamped cigarettes (§ 30474; count 6).2 The trial court granted appellant 60 months formal probation on count 1 and 36 months formal probation on the remaining counts. By stipulation, appellant agreed to pay $200,000 in restitution. Appellant appealed this judgment and we reversed his convictions on counts 1 and 2 after determining that section 30480 is a penalty provision and not a substantive crime for which appellant could be convicted. (People v. Jeiranian (Nov. 14, 2013, B227938) [nonpub. opn. on rehg.] (Jeiranian).) We also vacated the stipulated restitution order and remanded the matter to the trial court for a new restitution hearing. Following a new restitution hearing, the trial court ordered appellant to pay $162,392, the amount of tobacco excise tax owed to the California State Board of Equalization (Board). Appellant now appeals from this order of restitution. He argues that (1) his actions did not cause the loss of cigarette taxes to the Board, (2) the large amount of restitution was improper, and (3) the “law of the case” doctrine precludes the imposition of restitution. We affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Because the parties and this court are well versed in the facts of this case, we briefly summarize them here from our prior opinion on rehearing. Between 2001 and 2003, the Board investigated a retail store, Royal Cigars, Inc. (Royal), for distributing cigarettes that lacked a cigarette stamp.3 Investigators with the Board observed appellant