People v. Zamora CA5

California Court of Appeal Jun 29, 2021 No. F080247Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the restitution order, holding that the defendant forfeited his challenge to the restitution amount by failing to object in the trial court and by stipulating to the order, and that the record failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in ordering restitution that the defendant claims may include duplicative funeral expenses.
Whether the defendant forfeited his challenge to the restitution amount by failing to object and by stipulating to the order.
Whether defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by stipulating to the restitution order.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“defendant “has waived a claim of error as to the amount of restitution by failing to object on that ground in the trial court.””

“The appropriate amount of restitution is precisely the sort of factual determination that can and should be brought to the trial court’s attention if the defendant believes the award is excessive.”

“Because there is thus a valid possible explanation for counsel’s conduct, defendant has failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel.”

Filed 6/29/21 P. v. Zamora CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F080247 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF055078-00) v.

CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY ZAMORA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Walter L. Gorelick, Judge.

Robert Navarro, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Darren K. Indermill and Paul E. O’Connor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

*Before Peña, Acting P.J., Smith, J. and De Santos, J.

Christopher Anthony Zamora (defendant) appeals from an order modifying the amount of victim restitution he owes pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4.1 He alleges the sum in question likely includes double reimbursement for the same funeral and burial expenses. However, defense counsel below stipulated to the terms of the order. Defendant alternatively claims ineffective assistance of counsel, but the record does not establish deficient performance. Therefore, the order will be affirmed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In the year 2000, defendant was convicted of murdering Vincent Uranga and attempting to murder Uranga’s significant other, B.F. Defendant’s sentence included a prison term of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). In 2004, this court affirmed the murder verdict but reversed the conviction of attempted murder. (People v. Zamora (Dec. 1, 2004, F043085) [nonpub. opn.].) In the earlier appeal, defendant also challenged an order of restitution made payable to “the Tulare County Victim’s Advocate Program,” which had reportedly “paid $4,792 toward funeral and burial expenses for Uranga.” The People conceded the trial court had erred by designating an “unauthorized payee,” i.e., by not ordering the restitution payable to a victim or the California Victim Compensation Board (VCB).2 The matter was remanded for further proceedings. The People elected not to retry defendant on the attempted murder charge. He was resentenced, but the punishment of LWOP was unchanged. According to a minute order dated May 10, 2005, defendant was ordered to pay restitution “of $4792 as to victim Vincent Uranga’s family, to be collected by CDC.” (Some capitalization omitted.) The

People v. Zamora CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief