People v. Walter CA3

Filed 1/21/21 P. v. Walter CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C091537

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19F0004267)

v.

COREY RYAN WALTER,

Defendant and Appellant.

After defendant Corey Ryan Walter pleaded no contest to two counts of burglary, the trial court awarded victim restitution to the local high school that defendant burglarized, including reimbursement for the school’s “loss” of 18 hours of work time that the principal spent on tasks outside his normal duties as a result of defendant’s misconduct. On appeal, defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in making this award. We affirm.

1

BACKGROUND The underlying facts of defendant’s crime of conviction are largely irrelevant to the issues raised on appeal. Simply put, in December 2018, defendant pleaded no contest to two counts of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459).1 At the same hearing, the trial court sentenced defendant to serve two years in state prison (to be served in county jail) on one burglary count, and a concurrent two-year term on the other. The trial court imposed various costs not at issue in this appeal, and reserved jurisdiction to award victim restitution to the local high school that defendant burglarized (§ 1202.4). At a January 2020 restitution hearing, the school principal testified that after the “sheriff’s department . . . told [the school] to collect [their] information,” he spent six hours on three separate days (a) reviewing surveillance footage from multiple cameras on campus trying to determine the identity of the burglar and (b) “clipping video content” and “burning DVDs” to document the extent of damage caused. Ultimately, the trial court awarded $2,255 to the high school pursuant to section 1202.4. Of that amount, $1,404 was for the “loss” to the school due to the principal’s “attention away from his normal duties,” at a rate of $78 per hour for 18 hours. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. DISCUSSION Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion2 when it ruled the principal’s time spent reviewing video footage and creating DVD’s for law enforcement was