People v. Chun CA2/1

California Court of Appeal Aug 20, 2020 No. B295207Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the employer was a direct victim entitled to restitution for the full retail value of stolen goods it was obligated to replace, and that the restitution order was not an abuse of discretion.

Issues

Whether the employer qualifies as a 'victim' under Penal Code section 1202.4 for restitution purposes.
Whether the restitution order constituted an improper windfall or redundant compensation.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in calculating the restitution amount.
Whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel at the restitution hearing.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Hyundai is one of Chun’s direct victims—entitled to restitution according to section 1202.4, subdivision (f).”

“The amount Hyundai paid for the goods is the amount Chun’s crime cost Hyundai, regardless of whether Hyundai eventually received any of the items back.”

“The record demonstrates that the trial court’s restitution order is “reasonably calculated” to make Hyundai whole.”

Filed 8/20/20 P. v. Chun CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B295207

Plaintiff and (Los Angeles County Respondent, Super. Ct. No. TA145852)

TONY SANGHYUN CHUN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Connie R. Quinones, Judge. Affirmed. Mary Jo Strnad, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Steven E. Mercer, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________

Tony Chun pled no contest to a single count of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)).1 As part of his sentence, the trial court ordered Chun to pay restitution to his former employer, Hyundai Shipping U.S.A. (Hyundai), in the amount of $7,736.23. Chun argues that Hyundai was not the victim of his crime, and separately that the amount of restitution the trial court ordered constitutes an abuse of discretion. He also contends that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel at his restitution hearing. We affirm the trial court’s restitution order.

BACKGROUND Hyundai receives at its Rancho Dominguez facility merchandise purchased online from U.S. companies by consumers located overseas. Hyundai opens the boxes it receives to verify that customers’ orders are correct (cross-checked against invoices Hyundai receives for merchandise it is to ship), logs the merchandise into its computer, reseals the boxes, and prepares them to be shipped. Once a week, Hyundai places the merchandise in a shipping container, which is then picked up and delivered to the Port of Long Beach to be shipped.2 Hyundai hired Chun in December 2017 to handle merchandise from the time Hyundai received it until Chun loaded it into the shipping container. At the beginning of January 2018, however, Hyundai began receiving complaints from customers that the merchandise they ordered was missing. By watching security camera footage showing him removing items from boxes, placing it in his pockets or a bag, and leaving

People v. Chun CA2/1

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B295207

TONY SANGHYUN CHUN,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

CHANEY, J.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

AI Brief