People v. Serrano CA2/2

Filed 6/7/16 P. v. Serrano CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B266523

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA139459) v.

JOAQUIN LINARES SERRANO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Yvonne T. Sanchez, 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, Margaret E. Maxwell and William H. Shin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

Appellant Joaquin Linares Serrano pled no contest to a felony count of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459).1 He was sentenced to two years in state prison, and was ordered to pay fines and fees totaling $370. Following a separate restitution hearing, he was ordered to pay victim restitution in the amount of $250 plus 10 percent interest. He contends on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding victim restitution because the amount was not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. BACKGROUND According to the probation officer’s report, on June 23, 2015, officers responded to a burglary report at a studio apartment. They were informed that two pairs of athletic shoes and a Los Angeles Lakers jacket were missing. They recovered these items, as well as several expired checks, during appellant’s arrest the same day. During the victim restitution hearing on August 7, 2015, the prosecutor indicated the victim had submitted a restitution request in the amount of $350 for Air Jordan shoes the victim “claimed were ruined, stolen and ruined as a result.” The prosecutor noted the victim was not seeking restitution for the other pair of Air Jordans that were stolen and returned “pristine in the box.” Defense counsel objected to a restitution award on the grounds the shoes were returned to the victim the same day they were stolen, the shoes did not look ruined in a picture the prosecution had, the shoes were used, and the victim should only be entitled to the cost of having them cleaned. The prosecutor explained that the shoes were stolen from an apartment on a ranch, were worn around the ranch, and the picture showed “dirt all over the shoes.” The prosecutor also stated, “So it would seem to me that this victim is requesting restitution for these shoes because obviously he’s a collector, he collects the shoes.”