People v. Chiswick CA2/2

Filed 9/28/16 P. v. Chiswick CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B263428

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA088055) v.

DANIEL CHISWICK,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Elizabeth Munisoglu, Judge. Affirmed.

James M. Crawford, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Ryan M. Smith, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Daniel Chiswick (defendant) appeals from a restitution order, challenging that part of the order reimbursing the victim for part of the attorney fees incurred before and during law enforcement’s investigation. Defendant contends that the award was not supported by substantial evidence nor authorized by statute, and the trial court abused its discretion in adding $1,000 to deter future criminality. As defendant’s contentions are without merit, we affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Defendant was charged with felonious attempted extortion in violation of Penal Code section 524,1 felony eavesdropping, in violation of section 632, subdivision (a), and misdemeanor making annoying telephone calls, in violation of section 653m, subdivision (b). Prior to the preliminary hearing defendant entered a plea of no contest to one count of attempted extortion. On September 8, 2014, the trial court placed defendant on three years of summary probation with specified conditions, including the payment of victim restitution. On April 3, 2015, after a hearing, the court ordered defendant to pay $15,658.39 in victim restitution. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the order. The restitution hearing and order The victim, Mark Levine (Levine), who sought restitution in the amount of $29,484, submitted a declaration explaining his losses, which included lost wages, travel, private investigator’s fees, and $18,000 in attorney fees. Levine declared that during the time defendant made extortion demands, defendant threatened and harassed him, causing Levine to retain attorney Troy Slaten (Slaten). After several law enforcement agencies were contacted and declined to investigate, Slaten was eventually able to obtain assistance through contacts in the Los Angeles Police Department. Levine then assisted the police in a “sting” operation which led to defendant’s arrest and conviction. Slaten appeared at the restitution hearing and presented his legal fees to the court. Slaten explained to the court that defendant had secretly recorded a confidential