People v. Hail CA1/2

Filed 2/25/21 P. v. Hail CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A158722

WILLIAM EDWARD HAIL III, (Sonoma County Super. Defendant and Appellant. Ct. No. SCR695503)

Defendant William Edward Hail III’s appellate counsel requests that this court independently review the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) regarding the trial court’s post-trial order that Hail pay victim restitution totaling $512,540. Hail’s counsel informed him of his right to file a supplemental brief and he has not done so. Upon our independent review of the record under Wende, we conclude there are no arguable appellate issues requiring further briefing and affirm. BACKGROUND We affirmed Hail’s judgment of conviction in an unpublished opinion, People v. Hail, filed on February 25, 2021 (A156418), which we are issuing at the same time as this opinion.1 There, we discussed the background facts regarding the charges against Hail, the evidence presented at trial of

We may cite to A156418 “to explain the factual background of the 1

[current] case.” (K.G. v. Meredith (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 164, 172, fn. 9.) 1

regarding his criminal conduct (as well as that of co-defendant Douglas Jensen, who was convicted of certain charges as part of a negotiated disposition of his case, and who is not a party to this appeal) and his convictions after a jury trial. We shall not repeat that discussion other than to note that in December 2018 Hail was convicted of six counts of financial crimes against Jane Doe and John Doe (collectively, the Does), two elderly residents of Petaluma, California, and an aggravated white collar enhancement was found to be true, after evidence was presented that the Does had paid Hail over $700,000 to perform work on their residences under certain contracts, but which he either did not perform or did not complete. (People v. Hail (Feb. 25, 2021, A156418) at pp. 2-3.) Hail was sentenced to six years in prison. (Id. at p. 4.) After sentencing, the People filed an extensive analysis of the economic losses of the two elderly victims of Hail’s criminal conduct, Jane Doe and John Doe (who had passed away before trial), and sought an order that Hail pay restitution in the amounts of $281,367.98 to Jane Doe and $403,735.98 to the estate of John Doe. These amounts were comprised of the Does’ overpayments to Hail, based on evidence presented at trial, and the corrective costs to complete the work at their homes that Hail had not completed. The People stated that, for Jane Doe, these amounts were $260,495.84 and $20,872.14 respectively, and for John Doe, these amounts were $296,298.98 and $107,437 respectively. In October 2019, the court held a contested restitution hearing after repeatedly resetting the date of the hearing for much of 2019. The prosecution and co-defendant Jensen, through his counsel, informed the court that they had agreed to a stipulation under which Jensen would be jointly