People v. Contreras CA1/3

Filed 3/7/22 P. v. Contreras CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A162456 Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Mateo County v. Super. Ct. No. 19SF003450A)

IGNACIO CONTRERAS, Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Ignacio Contreras pleaded no contest to assault and felony vandalism — the latter committed to promote criminal conduct by gang members. (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1).)1 During Contreras’s sentencing, the trial court ordered him to register with local law enforcement as a gang member. It also reserved jurisdiction over restitution to Contreras’s victims, in an amount to be determined. On appeal, Contreras argues his victims did not report any damages by the time of his sentencing, and the trial court thus erroneously reserved jurisdiction on the restitution amount. He also argues Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill No. 333) — recently enacted legislation amending the substantive and procedural requirements regarding gang enhancements — eliminated gang enhancements for felony vandalism

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1

convictions, and we must strike his enhancement and registration. (Stats. 2021, ch. 699, § 3, eff. Jan. 1, 2022.) We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND In 2020, Contreras pleaded no contest to felony vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(1)), committed to further a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). He also pleaded no contest to assault (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). The trial court sentenced him to two years for his assault conviction and eight months for vandalism, to be served consecutively. Punishment on the gang enhancement was stayed, but the court ordered Contreras to register as a gang member. (§ 186.30, subds. (a)-(b)(2).) Contreras’s probation report noted there were nine vandalism victims, three of whom were not seeking restitution. Another victim was undecided about submitting a restitution claim. The City of South San Francisco, another victim, stated that it was not interested in submitting a restitution claim, but the probation department was unable to verify the city’s statement. The report also stated the four remaining victims did not submit any restitution claims, but probation was unable to contact them. On that basis, probation recommended Contreras be ordered to pay restitution “in amounts to be determined” to the City of South San Francisco and the five victims who had not affirmatively declined restitution. During Contreras’s March 2021 sentencing hearing, the trial court speculated the victims may not be seeking restitution because they feared retaliation. It then ordered “restitution [to] be reserved in an amount to be determined.” DISCUSSION Contreras argues the trial court erroneously reserved jurisdiction over the amount of restitution. This argument is meritless.