People v. Jordan CA2/6
Filed 9/23/20 P. v. Jordan CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B304003 (Super. Ct. No. 19F-05791) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County) v. JOSHUA ANTHONY JORDAN, Defendant and Appellant.
Joshua Anthony Jordan was ordered to pay $4,000 victim restitution after he stole a customized Ford truck and drove it down a ravine fleeing the police. Appellant appeals, contending that the restitution award is excessive because the Kelly Blue Book value for a stock 1997 Ford F-150 truck is $2,502. We affirm. Procedural History In 2019 appellant was charged with unlawful driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), receiving
stolen property (count 2; Pen. Code, § 496D, subd. (a))1, fleeing the police with reckless disregard (count 3; Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), and two counts of resisting an officer (counts 4-5; § 148, subd. (a)(1)). Appellant pled no contest to unlawful driving or taking a vehicle (i.e., a 1997 Ford F-150 truck) and fleeing an officer with reckless disregard. The other counts were dismissed, subject to a Harvey waiver (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754) permitting the trial court to consider the facts of the dismissed counts in ordering restitution. (See, e.g., People v. Ozkan (2004), 124 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1078.) Appellant agreed to pay the truck owner, James Shull, victim restitution and was sentenced to two years eight months state prison. At the restitution hearing, Shull stated that he bought the truck for $4,000. It was a “beach truck” with raised 21-inch tires, a high-performance engine, and a new transmission, rear end and drive shaft. “[T]he drivetrain and everything had been replaced . . . . [T]hat was why I bought it.” The truck had electrical problems that caused the battery to discharge and the headlights worked only on low beam. “I was still driving it. I would just take another battery with me” and “when the battery would start going low, I’d change the battery and come home with it.” Appellant claimed the truck had a Kelly Blue Book value ranging from $1,095 to $2,502. The trial court credited Shull’s testimony that the truck was worth more. (See Evid. Code, § 813, subd. (a)(2) [owner may opine on property’s value].) “Those upgrades . . . make the truck vehicle more ready to be taken off-road or [to] the dunes or the
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)