People v. Johnson CA3

Filed 7/20/16 P. v. Johnson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C080019

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. CM037307, CM042994) v.

SHANADOA WAYNE JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

On appeal, defendant Shanadoa Wayne Johnson challenges the victim restitution award entered by the trial court in association with defendant’s plea of no contest to charges of theft from an elder and grand theft by false pretenses. We will modify the judgment to reduce the victim restitution award.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant offered to pave the driveway of the victim, 91-year-old Richard Millington, for $1,800.1 Based on this agreement, Millington wrote an initial check to defendant in the amount of $1,280 (check No. 1) to purchase materials, which defendant’s father (codefendant) cashed. The next day, defendant returned to Millington’s house to begin work and asked Millington for an additional check in the amount of $2,400 to pay for materials and labor, which Millington provided (check No. 2). Within 30 minutes of receiving that check, defendant returned to Millington’s home, informed Millington that the bank could not cash that check because of an error, and that a new check would be needed in the same amount. Millington wrote another check in the amount of $2,400 (check No. 3) and called his bank to stop payment on the prior check (check No. 2). Shortly thereafter, Millington received a telephone call from a check cashing business asking for his authorization to cash a check in the amount of $2,400 to defendant’s father. Assuming the check being presented was the most recent one (check No. 3), Millington provided his authorization to the check cashing business.

A few days later, defendant completed the project at Millington’s home, and calculated the final price for the project. Defendant’s father demanded that Millington pay an additional $4,800, which Millington refused to do, claiming he had already paid in full. When defendant returned, he threatened to sue Millington if he did not pay, so Millington wrote an additional check in the amount of $1,500 (check No. 4). About a week later, the check cashing business called Millington claiming he owed them $2,400 because he authorized payment on a canceled check (check No. 2). So, Millington wrote a check to the check cashing business in the amount of $2,400 (check No. 5).