People v. Lincoln CA6

Filed 10/20/20 P. v. Lincoln CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H047212 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1900110)

v.

JEVELYN LINCOLN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Jevelyn Lincoln pleaded no contest to check forgery. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, placed Lincoln on probation, and imposed a number of probation conditions on her, including that she pay victim restitution. She appeals the restitution order, contending the trial court erred in ordering her to pay $99 for credit protection services for the husband of the individual whose bank account appeared on the forged check. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the restitution order. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Procedural History The underlying facts of Lincoln’s crime do not appear in the record on appeal. Both parties assert, based on statements made by the attorneys at Lincoln’s sentencing hearing, that Lincoln attempted to cash a $1,400 forged check written on a bank account belonging to Mina M. Lincoln was charged by complaint with forgery of a check whose

value exceeded $950 (Pen. Code, § 470, subd. (d);1 count 1). She pleaded no contest to the charge and waived her right to jury trial in a plea agreement that provided she would be placed on probation and ordered to serve 120 days in the county jail as a condition of probation. In her written plea agreement, she initialed the box next to the term in the plea agreement that stated “I understand the Court will order me to pay full restitution to any victim(s) for his/her/their losses.” The probation report prepared for Lincoln’s sentencing does not reference a specific victim restitution request. At the sentencing hearing, the probation officer requested that the court order $396 in victim restitution to be paid to victim Mina M.2 At some point prior to sentencing, the probation department apparently prepared a supplemental document with a specific request for restitution from the victim, but that document does not appear in the record on appeal. According to Lincoln’s counsel’s statements at the sentencing hearing, Mina M. had requested $396 for identity protection services from “ ‘cleanupmycredit.com,’ ” consisting of $285 for Mina M. and $99 for John M., Mina M.’s husband.3 Lincoln argued at the sentencing hearing there was no showing that Lincoln herself had tried to steal the victim’s identity and no indication there was any damage to the victim’s credit, “much less her husband’s credit.” Lincoln particularly objected to the inclusion of credit protection for Mina M.’s husband, since the bank account on which the check was written belonged only to Mina M. The prosecutor responded that these