People v. Golden CA3

Filed 8/11/21 P. v. Golden CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C089397

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STKCRFDV20170001145) v.

CURTIS LEE GOLDEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Curtis Lee Golden pleaded no contest to one count of forcible oral copulation and one count of dissuading a witness from testifying. After sentencing defendant, the trial court ordered him to pay $2,000 in victim restitution. On appeal, defendant challenges the court’s restitution order, arguing: (1) there was no causal connection between his offenses of conviction and the victim’s loss; and (2) the court violated his constitutional rights in failing to conduct a hearing on his ability to pay before imposing a victim restitution order. We affirm the judgment.

1

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS Defendant beat and strangled the victim and forced her to orally copulate him. After he was arrested and held in jail, he made several phone calls to the victim asking her not to testify against him in this case. He was charged in count 1 with forcible oral copulation (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (c)(2)(A)) (statutory section references that follow are to the Penal Code); in count 2 with corporal injury to a cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a)); in count 3 with immoral acts in the presence of a minor (§ 273g); in count 4 with cruelty to a child by inflicting injury (§ 273a, subd. (b)), in count 5 with dissuading a witness from testifying (§ 136.1, subd. (a)(1)); in count 6 with dissuading a witness from prosecuting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(2)); and in counts 7 through 11 with contempt of court (§ 166, subd. (c)(1)). It was alleged that defendant had served a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). As part of a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded no contest to counts 1 and 5 in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate determinate term of three years eight months, based on the lower term of three years on count 1 and eight months (one-third the midterm) on count 5. The trial court ordered victim restitution in an amount to be determined and retained jurisdiction for that purpose. After sentencing, the prosecution filed a brief requesting $2,000 in victim restitution to the Victim Compensation Program (VCP) for relocation expenses for the victim. The brief explained that relocation of the victim was necessary due to defendant’s violent conduct against her. The prosecution also submitted documentation from the Victim Compensation Board (VCB) regarding the relocation expenses paid on behalf of the victim. According to the “Law Enforcement Relocation Verification Form,” it was necessary for the victim to relocate for personal safety. The form explained: “Even after Defendant was incarcerated for the current brutal offense, involving repeated