People v. Parker CA5

Filed 8/3/21 P. v. Parker 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F079995 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 18CR-02337) v.

DONALD WARREN PARKER, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Mark V. Bacciarini, Judge. Denise M. Rudasill, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta, Attorneys General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Darren K. Indermill and F. Matt Chen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P.J., Peña, J. and DeSantos, J.

Defendant Donald Warren Parker pled no contest to arson and was granted three years’ felony probation. As a term of probation, he was required to pay the City of Merced (the city) $44,486.60 in restitution to reimburse the city for the cost of city employee time. On appeal, defendant contends that the award of restitution was unauthorized.1 The People disagree. We affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On June 5, 2018, the Merced County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant with arson (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (c);2 count 1), misdemeanor disobeying a court order (§ 166, subd. (a)(4); count 2), and misdemeanor trespassing (§ 602, subd. (o); count 3). On April 17, 2019, count 1 was modified to instead charge defendant with unlawfully causing fire to a structure (§ 452, subd. (c)). On April 17,3 defendant pled no contest to count 1 in exchange for dismissal of counts 2 and 3. On May 22, the trial court granted defendant probation for a term of three years and required him to serve 673 days in jail with credit for time served. As a term of probation, the trial court also required defendant to “[p]ay restitution, pursuant to

1 Defendant also contends his term of probation should be reduced from three years to two years pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.1, subdivision (a), as amended by Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019−2020 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 1950). The People agree. However, after the matter was fully briefed, we received a supplemental clerk’s transcript reflecting that, at the recommendation of the probation department and with the concurrence of the People, the trial court has already reduced defendant’s term of probation to two years pursuant to Assembly Bill 1950. Defendant’s claim is therefore moot. That portion of defendant’s appeal will be dismissed. 2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 3 All further dates refer to the year 2019 unless otherwise stated.