People v. Thompson CA6

Filed 11/19/15 P. v. Thompson CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H041068 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1065424)

v.

DAVID ALAN THOMPSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

I. INTRODUCTION Defendant David Alan Thompson pleaded no contest to driving under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent and causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b)) and admitted a prior conviction for driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 23152). At the May 2011 sentencing hearing, the trial court placed defendant on formal probation for three years and acknowledged that defendant had previously paid victim restitution in the amount of $9,365.93. On May 9, 2014, the trial court granted the People’s motion for modification of the restitution order and ordered defendant to pay an additional $3,420.31 in victim restitution for reimbursement of the victim’s medical expenses and income loss. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay an additional $3,420.31 in victim restitution since the amount he had previously paid, $9,365.93, included funds sufficient to cover the victim’s income loss and medical bills.

For the reasons stated below, we find no merit in defendant’s contentions and we will affirm the May 9, 2014 restitution order. II. BACKGROUND The first amended complaint filed in January 2010 charged defendant with felony driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol and causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a); count 1) and driving under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent and causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b); count 2). The complaint further alleged that defendant had a prior conviction for driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 23152). The factual background for the charged offenses was not included in the record on appeal. During proceedings held on June 11, 2010, the trial court asked defendant if there was “[a]ny chance of restitution payments?” Defendant responded that he could pay restitution of $1,000 that day and then $1,000 per month. From June 2010 to April 2011 defendant made 11 restitution payments in the total amount of $9,365.93. On April 1, 2011, the trial court ordered the release of the restitution funds of $9,365.93 to the victim. On April 29, 2011, defendant entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded no contest to count 2 (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b)) and admitted the prior conviction for driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 23152). The probation department’s waived referral report stated that the “victim witness assistance center” had paid the victim $3,420.31 for medical costs and lost wages. In addition, the victim submitted documentation of his vehicle-related expenses, which included payments totaling $5,906.27 for vehicle repairs, towing and storage fees, obtaining vehicle registration, lunch, rental costs and obtaining a police report.1 The probation department