California Court of Appeal Jan 20, 2015 No. D066020Unpublished
Filed 1/20/15 P. v. Rosales CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D066020
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF31506)
CARLOS ROSALES,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, L. Brooks
Anderholt, Judge. Affirmed.
Sheila O'Connor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General,
Charles C. Ragland, Scott Taylor and Donald W. Ostertag, Deputy Attorneys General, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
Carlos Rosales entered a guilty plea to one count of grand theft (Pen Code.,1
§ 487, subd. (a)). Thereafter Rosales was granted probation and ordered to make
restitution to the victim in the amount of $7,216.16.
Rosales appeals challenging only the restitution order. He contends the trial court
lacked sufficient evidence to support the calculation of the amount due and that the court
abused its discretion in imposing the amount due the victim.
of the trial courts providing restitution will not be set aside where there is a rational basis
for the court's calculation. (People v. Keichler (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1045.)
The question for a reviewing court is whether the trial court's decision was beyond
the bounds of reason under the circumstances. (People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th
1114, 1121.) The manner of calculation does not have to be the same as would be used in
a civil action. (People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26-27.)
Where the victim presents an adequate factual basis for the claimed restitution, the
burden shifts to the defendant to disprove the amount of the claimed loss. (People v.
Gemelli, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at p. 1543; People v. Fulton (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th
876, 886.)
4
B. Analysis
The person most knowledgeable of the extent and value of the losses in this case
was Rosales. He was the lead receiving person for Kmart and was responsible for
accepting deliveries of merchandise to the store. He had been systematically stealing
from Kmart for 18 to 24 months. Rosales gave the employer and the probation officer a
detailed list of the types of items and in many instances their value. It was Rosales who
estimated the total loss to Kmart at $10,000. There is no reason to find his recollection,
and admission, to be speculative.
We note, for example, that although Rosales had been stealing for some time and
regularly selling the merchandise or returning it for credit, he still had over $2,700 worth
of property in his possession. Rosales was in a far better position than the victim to
calculate the loss. Given the extensive and continuous theft, about which Rosales had
excellent recall, the trial judge was well within his discretion to use the amount of the
loss admitted by Rosales as the basis for the restitution calculation. As we have noted,
Rosales was given the benefit of full value deduction for the returned items, even though
some were not saleable.
In short, the method used to calculate restitution was reasonable and reliable.
Rosales presented nothing to the trial court that would support a different restitution
amount.
5
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
IRION, J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in calculating restitution based on the defendant's own admission of the total loss, as the methodology was rational and supported by the record.
Issues
Whether the trial court lacked sufficient evidence to support the restitution calculation.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the restitution amount.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We are satisfied the trial court used a rational methodology in calculating the amount of restitution and that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the order.”
“The method used to calculate restitution was reasonable and reliable.”