People v. Jacopetti CA3
Filed 1/13/22 P. v. Jacopetti CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----
THE PEOPLE, C092963
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 16FE011744)
v.
DENNIS JACOPETTI,
Defendant and Appellant.
This case arises from defendant Dennis Jacopetti’s deplorable actions including the swindling of numerous individuals by falsely representing himself as an attorney and using that position of trust to obtain money and property. Defendant’s partial no contest plea resolved the third amended felony information that had charged 24 counts of criminal conduct involving no less than 11 victims, including an admission that he took over $500,000 from his victims. Thereafter, the court awarded the victims restitution, which defendant opposed in select instances. Defendant’s appeal challenges one of those
1
awards, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in awarding $6,600 in victim restitution to D.S. and T.S., a married couple, who were the victims of the conduct charged in count 23. We affirm the award. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The third amended felony information charged defendant with grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a);1 counts 1, 4, 6, 10-17, 23-24); filing a false or forged instrument with the county recorder’s office (§ 115, subd. (a); count 2); taking or driving a motor vehicle with intent to deprive the owner of title to or possession of the vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 3); identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a); count 5); forgery (§ 470, subds. (c), (d); counts 7-9); fraudulently inducing a person to sign a contract (Civ. Code, § 2945.4, subds. (a), (e), (f); counts 18-20); and unlawful practice of law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6126, subd. (a); count 21). The information also alleged as to counts 8 and 9 that defendant had been released on bail when those offenses were committed (§ 12022.1) and as to all counts that defendant had engaged in a series of felonies the material element of which was fraud and embezzlement in an amount exceeding $500,000 (§ 186.11, subd. (a)) (a great-taking enhancement). Defendant resolved the matter by pleading no contest to counts 1, 2, 4, and 9, as well as admitting the on-bail enhancement and the great-taking enhancement in exchange for a stipulated prison sentence of 12 years. The remaining charges and allegations were dismissed with a Harvey2 waiver for purposes of restitution. On February 16, 2018, defendant was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. He was also ordered to pay certain fees and victim restitution. The court retained jurisdiction to award further restitution to other victims of defendant’s crimes.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)