People v. Schultz CA1/3

Filed 7/29/16 P. v. Schultz CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A144204 v. TIOCHA ELLIOT SCHULTZ, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 51419555) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Tiocha Elliot Schultz appeals from the trial court’s restitution order requiring that appellant reimburse the victim, Pamela Duggan, for the loss of her cell phone. Appellant contends the court erred when it determined that appellant’s criminal act was the proximate cause of the victim’s loss. Based on our review of the record, we conclude substantial evidence supports the trial court’s restitution order. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 On August 11, 2014, Pamela Duggan gave her friend, Roozbeh Katouzi, a ride home from work. No one else was in the car. Duggan used her cell phone while driving Katouzi home; “within a minute” before dropping him off. After using her cell phone, Duggan placed it back in her pocket where she always kept it. As Duggan stopped her car, she noticed two women and a man across the street talking to one another. Appellant was identified as the male. Appellant approached the driver’s side of Duggan’s car and

1 The facts are taken from the transcripts of the preliminary hearing and the restitution hearing. 1

asked if Duggan could give him and his girlfriend a ride to the Motel 6. At the time of appellant’s request, Duggan’s car window was rolled up. In response to appellant’s request, Duggan stated, “No, I’m sorry, I don’t have any gas.” Appellant again asked for a ride. Duggan rolled her window down to hear him more clearly and appellant punched her in the face. Katouzi, seated in the passenger seat, then jumped out of the car and Duggan jumped out too. When questioned as to why she got out of the car Duggan stated, “I have no idea. It was just a reaction. I mean, I shouldn’t have done it, but it was the first reaction.” When Duggan jumped out of the car, appellant punched her in the face again. Duggan immediately got back in her car and fled the scene. Katouzi remained at the scene arguing with appellant. Appellant followed Katouzi to the other side of the street, and then appellant ran away when Katouzi pulled out his phone. En route to her home, Duggan reached for her cell phone to call the police but she was unable to find it. After driving for a bit and not being able to locate her phone, Duggan decided to turn around and return to the scene to find her cell phone. She arrived at the scene and scoured the area, but could not find her cell phone. Katouzi was still at the scene. Duggan borrowed his cell phone and called 911. The following day, Duggan searched her car for her cell phone, but did not find it. Katouzi testified he did not see Duggan’s cell phone fall from her body. Neither Duggan nor Katouzi saw appellant take her cell phone. The Contra Costa County District Attorney filed an information charging appellant with felony assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 2 § 245, sub. (a)(4)) and misdemeanor battery (§ 242).3 The information also alleged two prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, sub. (b)). Appellant pleaded no contest to the charged offenses and the sentence enhancement allegations were dismissed. At