People v. Gordon CA3
Filed 2/18/15 P. v. Gordon CA3 Opinion following rehearing NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----
THE PEOPLE, C075825
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CM038133)
v.
KEVIN WILLIAM GORDON,
Defendant and Appellant.
This appeal originated as a review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, after defendant Kevin William Gordon entered a negotiated plea of no contest to leaving the scene of an injury accident (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a); count 1) and admitted a strike prior (1989 kidnapping; Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12)1 in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts (possession of marijuana for sale,
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
transportation of marijuana) and four prior prison terms with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for the upper term of three years, doubled to six years for the strike prior, and awarded 428 days of presentence custody credits. The court ordered defendant to pay $7,689 in victim restitution and various other fines, fees, and assessments. Defendant appealed without obtaining a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.) Counsel filed a Wende brief, and we subsequently filed our opinion in this case finding no arguable error favorable to defendant and affirming the judgment. (People v. Gordon (July 31, 2014, C075825 [nonpub. opn.].) Defense appellate counsel filed a petition for rehearing, arguing that the victim restitution order was not proper, citing People v. Martinez (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1156 (Martinez).2 We granted the petition for rehearing, vacated our opinion, and requested supplemental briefing on the propriety of the restitution order for losses from the collision, given defendant’s plea to the charge of hit and run. We again affirm the judgment, concluding that the victim restitution order was proper. FACTS On November 2, 2012, defendant turned his car in front of an oncoming van driven by John Foley. Foley attempted to stop but was unable to do so and crashed into defendant’s car. Foley’s three young children, who were in the van, suffered minor injuries. Defendant’s car sustained damage to the front and passenger side and Foley’s van had extensive front end damage. Defendant fled the scene after the accident. A
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)