People v. Sohal CA3

Filed 3/18/21 P. v. Sohal CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sutter) ----

THE PEOPLE, C082871

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF1410004203)

v.

BALWINDER SINGH SOHAL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Balwinder Singh Sohal pleaded no contest to receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a))1 and possession of methamphetamine, a misdemeanor (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377). He was placed on five years’ formal probation subject to various conditions, including the payment of $49,200 in victim restitution.

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code in effect at the time of the charged offenses.

1

On appeal, defendant contends the award of $42,000 in restitution for a stolen tractor was an abuse of discretion not supported by substantial evidence of replacement value. The Attorney General responds that the award was not too high, and, instead argues that the court should have awarded $89,000, the cost of purchasing a new tractor. The victim’s testimony established a prima facie case for the $42,000 award, which was not rebutted by defendant’s evidence. Awarding the $89,000 cost of the replacement tractor that the victim still owns would constitute a windfall. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The facts of defendant’s crime are taken from the factual basis of his plea, which he entered pursuant to People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595. Defendant aided in concealing and withholding property he knew to be stolen, a John Deere tractor with a value exceeding $20,000, a 1,000-gallon fuel tank with 200 gallons of fuel with a total value of $9,000, and a 500-gallon fuel tank valued at $8,000. Restitution for the victim was one of the terms of the plea agreement, but the amount of restitution was not stipulated. The probation report stated that the victim John Thunen estimated a monetary loss of $50,000, which included purchasing two tractors for $25,000 apiece. The report recommended defendant pay $50,000 in victim restitution to Thunen. Defendant requested a restitution hearing at sentencing. Thunen was the hearing’s sole witness. His tractor was stolen in February 2013. He bought the John Deere tractor for $63,400 in 2001. It was a “100-horse orchard tractor.” The tractor had as upgrades “Nelson fenders” to keep the crop from getting knocked off and a “Nelson spray cab,” which protects the driver from rollovers and is made of stainless steel so it does not rust. When the trial court asked about the tractor’s value, Thunen replied it was $42,000 for the used value of the tractor with the upgrades.