People v. Henderson

Filed 2/13/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C083153

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62144154)

v.

MARLOWE WILLIAM HENDERSON, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Placer County, Michael W. Jones, Judge. Affirmed.

Tonja R. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen, Michael A. Canzoneri, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1

Defendant Marlowe William Henderson, Jr., pleaded no contest to charges of stalking, vandalism, and disobeying a court order. At issue here is the validity of the trial court’s resulting restitution order, which encompassed the victims’ expenses for purchase and installation of a home security system. BACKGROUND In July 2016, defendant pleaded no contest to charges of stalking Christina T. between January 14, 2016, and February 23, 2016 (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a)),1 felony vandalism of Elizabeth T.’s home (§ 594, subd. (a)), and disobeying a domestic relations order (§ 273.6, subd. (a)). The victims were mother and daughter. The issue of restitution was considered at the sentencing hearing, held in September 2016. The victims’ losses totaled $17,639.68, including $5,796.79 to install a residential security system. The system included a monitored alarm system in the house with four cameras, installed on or about January 27, 2016. Two more cameras were installed in March 2016, along with motion detectors and security lights. Insurance paid $9,642.66 toward repair of the house and car but paid nothing toward the security system. At the restitution hearing, defendant argued he could not be ordered to pay restitution for the victims’ security system expenses because he was not convicted of a violent felony as required by section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3)(J). Defendant alternatively argued the security system was “redundant” and “excessive.” The trial court opined that the order sought was “well within its discretion” but failed to articulate any analysis of the relevant statutory scheme. The court ordered defendant to pay $7,997.02 in restitution including $5,796.79 for installation of the system.2