People v. Denegal CA3

Filed 10/29/21 P. v. Denegal CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C092869

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STKCRFECOD20140007388) v.

KEITH DARNELL DENEGAL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Keith Darnell Denegal pled no contest to voluntary manslaughter and personally using a firearm. At the sentencing hearing, defendant requested a continuance to allow his family to attend the hearing. The trial court denied the request and also imposed direct victim restitution at the sentencing hearing. On appeal, defendant claims the trial court erred by (1) denying his request to continue the sentencing hearing, and (2) imposing victim restitution without holding a hearing on the proper amount. We affirm.

1

I. BACKGROUND In 2014, defendant shot and killed Jesus Mendoza. Defendant was charged with voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)),1 shooting at an inhabited vehicle (§ 246), and possession of a firearm by a minor (§ 29610). For the first two counts it was also alleged defendant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)), and for the second count that he personally discharged a firearm and caused death or great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)-(e)). On April 24, 2020, defendant pled no contest to voluntary manslaughter and admitted the allegation he personally used a firearm. The remaining allegations were dismissed. The probation report dated July 8, 2020, stated defendant “was advised that he is welcome to have family and friends submit letters regarding his character to be included with this report,” but no letters were included. The report also recommended defendant pay fines and fees, including “restitution to the Victim’s family, in an amount to be established by the Court after a recommendation by the Probation Officer. The restitution matter is continued for 90 days pending the recommendation of the Probation Officer.” The sentencing hearing was held on August 10, 2020. At the hearing, defendant’s counsel requested a continuation of sentencing because defendant wanted family to attend and address the court to express support for defendant. The trial court denied the request because it was “not aware of a defense right to have individuals testify at a sentencing hearing.” The court also noted the case was six years old. The prosecutor asked at the sentencing hearing for victim restitution totaling $12,417.41 for funeral and burial related costs, comprised of $7,580 to the Victim