People v. Suade CA5

California Court of Appeal Aug 23, 2016 No. F072637Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant forfeited his claims regarding the sufficiency of evidence for a restitution award and his due process right to be present at the restitution hearing by failing to raise them in the trial court. Furthermore, the court found no abuse of discretion in the restitution order, as the People established a prima facie case for the medical expenses claimed.

Issues

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in awarding restitution based on the evidence provided?
Was the defendant denied due process by not being personally present at the restitution hearing?
Were the defendant's claims forfeited by failing to raise them in the trial court?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Failure to object in the trial court to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a restitution award constitutes a waiver of the issue.”

“The failure to raise a due process issue in the trial court constitutes a forfeiture of the issue on appeal.”

“The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering $10,455.34 in restitution, the amount claimed by the Board.”

Filed 8/23/16 P. v. Suade CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F072637 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SUF30038) v.

DAVID SUADE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Ronald W. Hansen, Judge. Sylvia W. Beckham, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Lewis A. Martinez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant David Suade pled no contest to one count of attempted murder, in exchange for dismissal of other counts and enhancements and an agreed upon five-year prison term. Suade challenges the trial court’s restitution order, contending the award was an abuse of discretion and he was denied due process because he was not present at the restitution hearing. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On June 21, 2005, Suade, a Norteno gang member, approached a Sureno gang member on the street and stabbed him four times. Suade then left the scene. On September 21, 2005, Suade assaulted a student traveling home from school by first knocking the student to the ground and then kicking the student in the head multiple times. After the assault on the student, Suade left the scene. On April 19, 2006, Suade was charged with attempted murder (count 1) and assault by means of force like to produce great bodily injury (count 2) of victim 1; assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (count 3) of victim 2; and active participation in a criminal street gang (count 4). With respect to counts 1 and 3, it also was alleged that Suade personally inflicted great bodily injury on both victims and that each offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. On July 17, 2006, Suade pled no contest to count 1, attempted murder, and stipulated to a five-year prison term. In exchange for his plea, all remaining counts and enhancements would be dismissed. Suade also entered a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, for victim restitution. Suade was sentenced on August 14, 2006 to a term of five years in prison and was awarded 325 days of custody credits. A restitution fine of $1,000 was imposed pursuant

People v. Suade CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief