People v. Cross CA2/8

California Court of Appeal Jun 29, 2016 No. B262332Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by including losses related to the defendants' prior tenancy in the restitution order, as restitution is limited to economic losses resulting from the specific criminal conduct for which the defendants were convicted. The court modified the restitution award to include only those damages directly attributable to the defendants' unlawful reentry into the apartment.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred by including losses related to a prior tenancy in a criminal restitution order.
Whether there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's restitution award for property damage.

Disposition. Affirmed as modified.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“most of the ordered restitution was for damages incurred as a result of the tenancy, and not as a result of defendants’ crimes.”

“the court may only order restitution for losses arising out of the “criminal conduct for which the defendant has been convicted.””

“we strike the other damages, and order the restitution award modified to recover damages of $784.58, plus 10 percent interest.”

Filed 6/29/16 P. v. Cross CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B262332

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA064584) v.

MARLEESHA MARIE CROSS et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Lisa M. Chung, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Nikoo N. Berenji, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Marleesha Marie Cross. William L. Heyman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Delquan Jamond Williams. 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.

********

Defendants Marleesha Marie Cross and Delquan Jamond Williams entered no contest pleas to second degree burglary and cruelty to a child, based on defendants’ unlawful reentry into their apartment after they had been lawfully evicted. (Pen. Code, §§ 273a, subd. (b), 459.)1 Defendants were sentenced to county jail terms. Following a restitution hearing, defendants were ordered to pay $7,416.87 for their landlord’s economic losses. Defendants appeal the trial court’s restitution order, contending the court awarded the victim (defendants’ former landlord) expenses incurred as a consequence of their tenancy and eviction, not for their crimes. The People concede that many of the claimed losses were not recoverable as victim restitution. We agree, strike the restitution order, and modify the order to award $784.58 in restitution, plus 10 percent interest.

People v. Cross CA2/8

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B262332

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

GRIMES, J.

BIGELOW, P. J.

FLIER, J.

AI Brief