People v. Tansiel CA2/7

Filed 3/15/16 P. v. Tansiel CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B261073

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA428462) v.

ROMAN TANSIEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Paul T. Suzuki, Judge. Affirmed. Karyn H. Bucur, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Johnsen and Marc A. Kohm, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. __________________________

Roman Tansiel appeals from the restitution order entered after he pleaded no contest to assaulting Jose Gomez with a deadly weapon (a bottle) and admitted the special allegation he had inflicted great bodily injury. Tansiel contends he should not have been ordered to pay restitution for Gomez’s lost wages because the back injury that prevented Gomez from working was not caused by the assault. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. The Plea Tansiel was charged by felony complaint with one count of assault with a deadly 1 weapon. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).) It was specially alleged the offense was a hate crime (§ 422.75, subd. (a)) and Tansiel personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). On November 13, 2014 Tansiel pleaded no contest to assault with a deadly weapon and admitted the great bodily injury allegation; the hate crime allegation was dismissed. Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, the court sentenced Tansiel to a two- year state prison term. A restitution hearing was set for November 25, 2014. 2. The Restitution Hearing At the restitution hearing Gomez testified Tansiel struck him on the back of the head with a bottle as he was about to step off a bus at its front door. Tansiel subsequently tried to hit Gomez’s partner with the bottle, but Gomez pushed Tansiel. Tansiel then hit Gomez in the chest and abdomen. The further altercation between Tansiel and Gomez occurred outside the rear door of the bus. Gomez received three stitches in the back of his head. Medical insurance paid all but $676.79 of the cost. As of the time of the hearing, approximately five months after the incident, Gomez had been unable to return to work because of back pain. An in-home care services provider, he had been earning $1,250 every two weeks. Nine weeks after the incident he began receiving disability payments of $200 per week. Gomez testified he did not know when he would be able to return to work. When challenged on cross-examination