People v. Natividad CA4/3

Filed 4/14/21 P. v. Natividad CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G058448

v. (Super. Ct. No. 15CF1637)

RYAN PATRICK NATIVIDAD, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Hugh Michael Brenner, Judge. (Retired judge of the Orange Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Michael Pulos and Britton B. Lacy, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1

Ryan Patrick Natividad appeals from a postjudgment order after the trial court ordered him to pay over $75,000 in restitution. Natividad argues the trial court abused its discretion by ordering he pay restitution. We disagree and affirm the postjudgment order. FACTS A complete recitation of the facts can be found in People v. Natividad (Nov. 8, 2019, G055248) [nonpub. opn.]. Suffice it to say, Natividad, a police officer, claimed he injured his right hand while on duty, but camera footage proved he didn’t. A jury convicted him of insurance fraud (Pen. Code, § 550, subd. (a)(1), all further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated), and making a fraudulent statement (Ins. Code, § 1871.4, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Natividad on formal probation for three years. The court ordered him to serve 180 days in jail on electronic supervision. As a condition of probation, the court ordered he pay restitution in an amount determined by the probation department. Natividad requested a restitution hearing on the amount of restitution. At the hearing, the prosecution offered five exhibits and the testimony of a Costa Mesa (City) human resource analyst (Employee). Natividad did not dispute the City’s restitution request for medical expenses, attorney’s expenses, and investigation costs related to the workers’ compensation claim for his hand injury and he submitted on exhibit Nos. 2 and 3; exhibit No. 1 was a summary sheet. Natividad, however, challenged exhibit No. 4, the City’s payment of insurance premiums, and exhibit No. 5, the City’s payment of salary, benefits, and insurance. Employee testified the City placed Natividad on administrative leave with pay in January 2015 because it was investigating his workers’ compensation claim for fraud. She stated that in July 2015, the City learned he was not available as required by the administrative leave process and it stopped paying him. She said that same month the