People v. Davillier CA2/7

Filed 9/7/16 P. v. Davillier CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, B267818

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA131555) v.

KIMBERLY DAVILLIER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Yvonne T. Sanchez, Judge. Affirmed. Juliana Drous, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Robert C. Schneider, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

INTRODUCTION

After Kimberly Davillier pleaded no contest to burglary, the trial court held a restitution hearing, at the conclusion of which the court ordered Davillier to pay the victim, Downey Nissan, $21,352.77 plus interest. Davillier contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering restitution because Downey Nissan’s insurer, not Downey Nissan, made the restitution request, and because there was an insufficient factual basis for the amount of restitution the court ordered. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In January 2014 Davillier pleaded no contest to one count of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)1 after the People presented evidence at a preliminary hearing that she made false statements on a credit application to finance the purchase of a car from the Downey Nissan dealership, took possession of the car with a $750 down payment, and made no further payments. As part of her plea agreement, Davillier agreed to pay restitution. The trial court sentenced Davillier to three years probation, and scheduled a restitution hearing. On September 14, 2015 the trial court conducted the restitution hearing. Citing a letter from Downey Nissan’s insurer requesting $21,352.77 in restitution, the prosecutor asked the trial court to order Davillier to pay that amount to Downey Nissan. Davillier objected on the ground that the request for restitution did not come from the actual victim, Downey Nissan, but from its insurer. Davillier also objected to the amount of restitution requested, arguing that Downey Nissan was entitled only to recover the value of the car, which, she contended, was not $21,352.77. Counsel for Davillier represented that she had evidence (although she did not introduce that evidence at the hearing) that Downey Nissan purchased the car in July 2011 for $16,000, Davillier purchased the car