People v. Obregon CA1/1

Filed 7/9/15 P. v. Obregon CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A142769 v. MARIA OBREGON, (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. SCN221252) Defendant and Appellant.

INTRODUCTION In this case, defendant Maria Obregon was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $3,926.22 after entering a guilty plea to a violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a). She appeals the court’s order that she pay full restitution to the victims for their economic losses, including those which were reimbursed by the victims’ insurance company. We will affirm the court’s order. STATEMENT OF THE CASE On September 19, 2013, the San Francisco District Attorney filed a complaint alleging three counts: one violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (count 1); one violation of Penal Code section 496d, subdivision (a) (count 2); and one violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a) (count 3). On November 15, 2013, defendant pleaded guilty to count 3, a felony violation of section 2800.2, subdivision (a), evading the police. On December 6, 2013, defendant was placed on probation for three years. She was ordered to serve a county jail term of 10 months as a

condition of probation, with half-time credits. Defendant was ordered to pay restitution to the victims in the amount of $1,000 to cover the deductible on the victims’ insurance policy for undisputed loses. On April 2, 2014, the probation department filed a motion to modify defendant’s probation to increase the amount of restitution to a total of $3,926.22 to fully compensate the victims for the entire amount of the loss. This sum reflected the original $1,000 order, along with the total compensation the victims received from their insurance company based on the victims’ existing policy. The issue of increased restitution was heard by the trial court on August 1, 2014. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered the restitution obligation of defendant increased to the sum suggested by probation: $3,926.22. The court directed the victims to report to the insurer any payment they received from the defendant in excess of $1,000. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal on August 4, 2014, contesting the increased restitution order to include losses not actually incurred by the victims. STATEMENT OF FACTS The probation report indicates the defendant fled from police in a stolen automobile on September 16, 2013, and the car was later found by police parked and abandoned in front of a home in San Francisco. Victims of the incident, Chad and Kathryn Hetherington of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, submitted paperwork to the probation department indicating their insurance paid them $2,306.47 under the policy based on receipts the victims submitted. The insureds had a deductible of $1,000 not paid by the insurance company. The out-of-pocket loss was the original basis for the restitution amount. ANALYSIS Defendant argues a restitution award for an amount the victim has already been reimbursed by an insurance company is “not only disingenuous and inconsistent with the 2