People v. Lopezvelasquez CA6

Filed 3/18/21 P. v. Lopezvelasquez CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H047007 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1808935)

v.

JUAN GABRIEL LOPEZVELASQUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Juan Gabriel Lopezvelasquez pleaded no contest to taking or unauthorized use of a vehicle and admitted he had suffered a prior felony conviction for the same offense. The trial court sentenced him to two years in county jail and ordered him to pay victim restitution. On appeal, Lopezvelasquez challenges a portion of the victim restitution order. He contends the award of restitution for tools that were in the vehicle was improper because the loss was unrelated to his criminal offense. For the reasons stated below, we find no error, and will affirm the restitution award. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. The Facts of the Case 1 In December 2018, an officer stopped Lopezvelasquez while he was driving the victim’s pickup truck. After the truck was returned, the victim noticed that his tools were missing, the truck had been painted, and it needed a new ignition and starter.

1 The facts are taken from the probation report.

B. Procedural Background The prosecution charged Lopezvelasquez by complaint with one count of taking or unauthorized use of a vehicle. (Veh. Code, § 10851.) The complaint alleged Lopezvelasquez “did drive and take” the victim’s 1996 Dodge pickup truck with the intent to temporarily deprive the owner of title and possession of the vehicle. The complaint further alleged Lopezvelasquez had previously been convicted of a felony violation of Vehicle Code section 10851. (Pen. Code, § 666.5.)2 Lopezvelasquez pleaded no contest to the offense and admitted the prior conviction. He also admitted violating the conditions of his probation in two separate cases. When he entered his plea, Lopezvelasquez initialed a section of the change of plea form acknowledging that he understood the court would order him to pay “full restitution to any victim(s).” The trial court sentenced Lopezvelasquez to the low term of two years in county jail. The court ordered a total of $9,000 in victim restitution. At sentencing, the court reinstated and terminated probation in the two separate cases. C. The Restitution Order The victim submitted a statement of loss for $9000. It included $2,500 for the value of the victim’s truck. The victim’s statement of loss also included tools worth $6,500. The victim informed the probation officer that he was a roofing contractor and that “none of his tools were in the vehicle when he got it back.” The tools and work equipment included roof jacks, ladder jacks, nail guns, super anchor safeties, and ladders. At sentencing, the trial court issued a general order of victim restitution including but not limited to $9,000. Defense counsel objected, stating that the victim’s truck had been stolen a month before Lopezvelasquez was found in possession of it. Defense