People v. Ferrel CA6

Filed 12/2/15 P. v. Ferrel CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H040689 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. Nos. SS122471A & B)

v.

MELISSA FERREL et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

The main issue in this case is the scope of a criminal defendant’s due process rights at a victim restitution hearing when the victim has died before the hearing and her estimates of the value of jewelry stolen were relayed to a third party who testified at the hearing. Facts In general, the facts of the underlying offenses are not in dispute. We will recite them very briefly. Over a period of approximately four months, defendants Melissa Ferrel and Jamie Garcia stole numerous pieces of jewelry, cash, checks that came from a garage sale, and a laptop computer from Gail Rose. Rose was able to recover some of the jewelry. In one instance, Rose paid $157 to a pawnshop to recover an emerald and diamond ring. Previously, she had given Ferrel a check for $1,500 to recover the ring, but neither Ferrel nor Garcia ever returned the ring to her.

Ferrel pleaded guilty to one count of theft from an elder or dependent adult (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (d)). 1 Garcia pleaded no contest to the same charge. The probation officer prepared a report for the restitution hearing in which he listed the various items still missing and requested a restitution amount of $29,000— $17,100 for the 11 rings, $1,500 for the two bracelets, $7,100 for the necklace and pendent, $1,200 in United States currency, an unspecified amount for the checks, $1,500 for the check Rose wrote to Ferrel and $600 for the laptop computer. The probation officer noted that the executor of Rose’s estate indicated that there were several bars of silver valued at $20,000 still missing. At the restitution hearing, Salinas Police Officer Chris Swinscoe testified that the items and value listed in the probation report were based on what the victim had told him. He said that Rose had valued the rings at $17,100, two bracelets at approximately $1,500, the necklace and pendant at $1,100, silver bars at $6,000, and United States currency at $1,200. He explained that the victim reported that a $9,000 diamond ring had been stolen, but had been recovered, so that the total loss for that theft was not $9,000 but was rather $1,657—a check for $1,500 Rose wrote to Ferrel that was to recover the ring plus the $157 Rose paid to the pawnshop. Officer Swinscoe stated that to figure out the amount stolen the victim “had to give it some thought” before she came up with the estimates. He said that when he interviewed Ferrel, she estimated that the value of what she had taken was $10,000, and that the watches she had taken were recovered when her mother paid $5,175 to a pawnshop to recover them. Officer Swinscoe had no information about the value of the jewelry other than what was given to him by Rose. He stated that the victim could not recall any details about some of the jewelry and valuables that were stolen.