People v. Stevens CA1/3

Filed 12/9/21 P. v. Stevens CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A162531

v. (City and County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. 226671) BRYAN STEVENS, Defendant and Appellant.

On November 17, 2016, the San Francisco District Attorney filed a 17-count information charging defendant Bryan Stevens with various criminal acts occurring between April 22, 2016 and October 22, 2016. All the charged offenses arose from several incidents between defendant and the victim, who lived in separate apartments in the same complex, culminating in defendant firing a gunshot through the front door of the victim’s apartment. On April 6, 2020, defendant, having waived his rights, pleaded guilty to the following six offenses: (1) stalking the victim between April 22, 2016 and October 22, 2016 (Pen. Code,1 § 646.9, subd. (a)); (2 and 3) shooting a firearm through and vandalizing the front door of the

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

victim’s apartment (§§ 264, 594, subd. (b)(2)(A)); and (4, 5, and 6) being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)), carrying a concealed firearm (§ 25400, subd. (a)(2)), and carrying a loaded firearm in public (§ 25850, subd. (a)(1)). In exchange for his plea, the court promised that defendant would be sentenced to an aggregate 10-year sentence, with the understanding defendant would waive any potential section 654 issues as to any counts and the remaining counts would be dismissed. Defendant was informed he would be required to pay victim restitution. On May 11, 2020, defendant was sentenced to the promised 10- year term, with a total credit for time served of 2,638 days. The court also issued a 10-year criminal protective order for the victim against defendant. The matter was continued for a hearing to address defendant’s objections to the victim’s request for restitution in the sum of $13,135.86. At the restitution hearing held on February 17 and April 2, 2021, the court considered counsels’ arguments and admitted into evidence the parties’ memoranda and exhibits regarding the victim’s restitution request. In her written statement, the victim explained that her claimed expenses were incurred as a result of defendant’s “extreme stalking” that threatened her personal safety. Specifically, she had to stay in a hotel and purchase meals “as [her] home residence was deemed unsafe by SFPD [San Francisco Police Department]” until she could move, had to move, and had to hire an attorney to secure a “Civil Restraining Order” against defendant. The court awarded the victim restitution in the sum of $9,135.86, consisting of $1,834.15 for hotel expenses, $807.52 for meal expenses,