People v. Villalpando CA1/4

Filed 5/14/21 P. v. Villalpando CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A158402 v. VICTOR VILLALPANDO, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. NF435541) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Victor Villalpando appeals a victim restitution order entered following his conviction, based upon a plea of no contest, to obtaining money by false pretenses and contracting without a license. He contends there is no factual basis for the amount awarded that has resulted in a windfall to the victim. We conclude otherwise and shall affirm the order. Background In the fall of 2013 defendant contracted to perform work renovating two units of an apartment building in the City of San Mateo owned by Shawn Stoval. After the performance of some work and receipt of several payments, defendant ceased work on the unfinished job in the summer of 2014. In October 2016 defendant was charged with multiple offenses arising out of the construction project and ultimately pleaded no contest to obtaining money by false pretenses (Pen. Code, § 532, subd. (a)) and contracting without a license (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7028, subd. (a)). The trial court suspended imposition of

1

sentence and placed defendant on probation for five years, subject to numerous conditions including six months in county jail.1 Following an evidentiary hearing at which the prosecution requested $317,626 of victim restitution, the court ordered defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $192,020. Defendant has timely appealed but disputes only $20,000 of the portion of the order awarding Stoval $50,000 for the nonperformance of work on “Unit 1” of the building for which he had been paid $65,826.54. The court estimated that defendant had completed approximately 25 percent of that work and thus, after rounding, ordered restitution of 75 percent of that amount, or $50,000. Defendant contends the evidence establishes that he was paid no more than $30,000 for work he failed to perform in Unit 1. Discussion “ ‘Restitution is constitutionally and statutorily mandated in California.’ [Citations.] Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f) provides for a direct restitution order ‘in every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct.’ ‘The order is to be for an amount “sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] A person who utilizes the services of a convicted unlicensed contractor is eligible for restitution for economic losses [citation], regardless of whether he or she had knowledge that the contractor was unlicensed. (§ 7028, subd. (h).) [¶] ‘ “The standard of review of a restitution order is abuse of discretion. ‘A victim’s restitution right is to be broadly and liberally construed.’ [Citation.] ‘ “When there is a factual and