People v. Santori

Filed 12/18/15 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B262306

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. MA064238, v. MA064646)

ANTHONY R. SANTORI,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Eric P. Harmon, Judge. Affirmed.

Theresa Osterman Stevenson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., and David A. Voet, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

******

* Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1100 and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of part 2 of the Discussion.

We affirm the trial court’s restitution order requiring defendant Anthony R. Santori pay the City of Palmdale $18,878.23 in restitution for 32 incidents of graffiti. This case is distinguishable from Luis M. v. Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 300 (Luis M.) in which our Supreme Court held that no factual nexus existed between the minor’s conduct and the juvenile court’s restitution order. Whereas in Luis M. the restitution order was based only on the average cost for graffiti remediation, here the People presented evidence of defendant’s specific acts, and that evidence was considered in calculating the amount of restitution. FACTS AND PROCEDURE In addition to a history of vandalism, defendant had a prior sustained petition for taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent. He also suffered a prior burglary conviction. While on probation for vandalism and subject to search conditions, deputy sheriffs observed graffiti on defendant’s cell phone depicting his moniker “Seor.” Defendant admitted his moniker was Seor. The City of Palmdale (City) had abated numerous incidents of graffiti depicting the name Seor and had retained photographs of the abated graffiti. Defendant admitted that he was responsible for 36 of those incidents. In case No. MA064238, defendant was charged with seven counts of vandalism. In each count it was alleged that the damage was over $400. Defendant pled no contest to one count of vandalism. In case No. MA064646, defendant was charged with five counts of vandalism in an amount over $400. Defendant pled guilty to one count, and agreed to pay restitution. The prosecution requested $21,952 in restitution. Defendant objected to the amount, and the court held a hearing. At the restitution hearing, Ruth Oschmann, the City’s crime prevention officer testified. She analyzed the City’s cost to abate the graffiti in defendant’s two cases. She considered the costs of the cleanup crew, administrative costs, her salary, costs to hire a deputy sheriff, and the cost of Graffiti Tracker. Graffiti Tracker is a computer software program that the City pays to use. The City also pays the Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department a fee to hire a deputy to investigate the graffiti. Based on these costs