People v. Wilding CA1/5

Filed 7/28/16 P. v. Wilding CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A144895 v. CAMERON WILDING, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR639166) Defendant and Appellant.

Cameron Wilding appeals from a judgment entered after he entered a plea of no contest to vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)), based on allegations that he caused damage to his victim’s car.1 He contends the court erred in imposing restitution in an amount greater than the car’s value. We will affirm the judgment. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A complaint alleged that Wilding committed assault with a deadly weapon using his vehicle (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and committed felony vandalism of the vehicle of his victim, Maurice Light (§ 594, subd. (a)). According to the probation report (which purportedly relied on the police report), Light was driving on Old Redwood Highway and saw Wilding’s vehicle come very close to the rear of his vehicle and begin to swerve back and forth. Light felt a “nudge” to the rear of his vehicle and observed Wilding’s vehicle passing on the right. As Wilding’s vehicle passed, it spun out of control and collided with the right side of Light’s vehicle twice. Light pulled to the shoulder and called 911. Wilding got out of his car,

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

approached Light’s vehicle, banged his fist on the side of Light’s window, and then jumped on the hood of Light’s car and banged his fist on the windshield. When Light tried to drive away, Wilding slid off the hood, grabbed a large tree branch, and beat on the windshield of Light’s vehicle until it shattered. Police noted there were shards of glass from the shattered windshield on Light’s clothing and hair. In May 2014, Wilding entered into a plea agreement by which he would plead no contest to felony vandalism and be placed on probation. If Wilding paid restitution and satisfactorily completed an anger management course, the charge and conviction would be reduced to a misdemeanor (§ 17, subd. (b)) and the assault count would be dismissed. The court accepted Wilding’s plea. The probation department’s felony presentence report stated that Light had not requested restitution and did not indicate a restitution amount. By the time of the sentencing hearing, however, Light had decided to seek restitution. At the July 22, 2014 sentencing hearing, the prosecutor represented that Light’s car had sustained $9,000 worth of damage due to Wilding’s collision and vandalism. Light’s car had to be “completely replaced,” and Light had bought a used replacement vehicle for $18,000. The prosecutor asked for a restitution order of $9,000, represented she would obtain supporting documentation, and acknowledged that Wilding had a right to contest the amount. The court tentatively set restitution at $9,000 and scheduled a restitution hearing. Also at the sentencing hearing, Wilding tendered a $2,000 check towards restitution, submitted documentation indicating he had completed an anger management course, and moved for a reduction of his conviction to a misdemeanor. The prosecutor did not object. The court reduced Wilding’s conviction to a misdemeanor, placed him on court probation for three years, suspended imposition of sentence, ordered payment of restitution and other probation conditions, and dismissed the assault count.2