People v. Williams CA2/6

Filed 12/15/15 P. v. Williams CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B259136 (Super. Ct. No. 1312078) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

WALDEN REID WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted Walden Reid Williams of two counts of grand theft (Pen. Code, §§ 484, 487) and two counts of sale of land without a public report (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 11022, subd. (a), 11023). The jury also found true the special allegation that the amount of loss exceeded $200,000. (Pen. Code, § 186.11.) The trial court ordered restitution. In the first appeal (People v. Williams (Dec. 3, 2013, B245317) [nonpub. opn.]), we affirmed the conviction, but remanded the matter for a reconsideration of the amount of restitution. On remand, the trial court ordered restitution in the amount of $383,821 to one victim, $381,493 to a second victim, and $90,267 to a third victim. The court ordered the amounts to bear interest. We reduce the amount awarded to the first victim by $2,750. We reduce the amount awarded to the second victim by $6,000. In all other respects, we affirm.

FACTS Williams owned a parcel of undeveloped real property in Santa Barbara County. He subdivided the parcel into 20-acre parcels. He installed a water well for agricultural use. The county informed him in writing that a permit was required to draw water for residential use. Williams did not obtain a residential water well permit. He sold three parcels by falsely representing to the buyers that they needed only to install back-flow valves in order to have water for residential use. Williams sold one of the lots to Ronald Dewey and Judy Paulson (hereafter collectively "Dewey"), another lot to Brian Abel, and a third lot to Carolyn Walch. The trial court ordered Williams to pay restitution to his victims in the amount of $2,050,794. The court based the restitution order on the full amount of the purchase price plus expenses in obtaining a domestic water system. The record does not reflect whether the court held a hearing on the amount of restitution. In our opinion on appeal, we stated that awarding the full purchase price of the parcels was a windfall to the owners. We remanded for the trial court to conduct a restitution hearing. (People v. Williams, supra, B245317.) DISCUSSION The trial court is required to order restitution in all cases in which a crime victim suffers a loss. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28; Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f).) But the victim is only entitled to restitution for actual losses suffered. (People v. Whisennand (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1391.) Restitution is limited to the losses arising out of the criminal activity that formed the basis of the conviction. (People v. Woods (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1050.) The trial court's restitution order is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. (People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26.) Section 1202.4 does not require any particular kind of proof of the amount of restitution. (People v. Gamelli (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1542-1543.) Even the victim's bare, unverified statement of loss is sufficient to establish a prima facie showing of loss. (Id. at p. 1543.) Once the victim makes a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the defendant to rebut the victim's statement of losses. (Ibid.)