People v. Quezada CA2/8

Filed 5/5/16 P. v. Quezada CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B264909

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA431860) v.

JAIME QUEZADA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Craig J. Mitchell, Judge. Affirmed.

Joseph R. Escobosa, 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, Scott A. Taryle and Michael C. Keller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________

Defendant and appellant Jaime Quezada, along with his codefendant, tagged several local businesses with gang graffiti. Defendant pleaded no contest to a single count of misdemeanor vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594) and admitted a gang enhancement (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (d)), rendering him eligible for a felony sentence. He was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay restitution. Defendant stipulated to $500 in restitution to the owner of two damaged properties. On appeal, he challenges the $950 in restitution to the City of Los Angeles (City), for remediating the graffiti at two other properties. Defendant argues there is insufficient evidence connecting the City’s $950 charge to the costs of remediating the damage he caused. We disagree and affirm. FACTS The most important piece of evidence submitted at the restitution hearing was the City’s invoice for removing graffiti at the two locations. The invoice indicates that, at each property, there was black spray paint graffiti on a red brick wall, which paint was removed (as opposed to, for example, being painted over). At the first location, the graffiti was between 12 and 18 feet in length, necessitating the cleaning of a 300 square foot area of wall. The work was performed between December 3 and 4, 2014. At the second location, the graffiti was smaller, requiring the City to clean only 40 square feet. The work was performed between December 4 and 5, 2014. The work was not done by the City itself, but was contracted out to one of the City’s abatement contractors, Korean Youth & Community Center. The invoice listed a price of $475 for each location, for a total of $950. The invoice itself explained: “The cost of graffiti removal incurred by the City of Los Angeles encompasses various elements, ALL OF WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO OPERATE A CITYWIDE GRAFFITI REMOVAL PROGRAM. The costs listed on this sheet do NOT reflect the costs of SOLELY removing graffiti. Rather, the prices given are flat rates, fundamentally based upon the type of surface that has been tagged and the subsequent type of removal required. In addition, however, there are a multitude of costs taken into account that determine a given flat rate. Our office does not list an item by item breakdown of costs, however, they include but are not limited to . . . .” At this point,