People v. Lockett CA2/8

Filed 5/13/22 P. v. Lockett CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B313308

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA474653) v.

TRAMEL SYLVESTER LOCKETT,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Gustavo N. Sztraicher, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Robert Booher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Zee Rodriguez and Michael C. Keller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________________

Defendant Tramel Sylvester Lockett appeals from an order denying his post-sentencing motion to modify restitution, Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(1).1 He contends that intervening events since the restitution amount was originally set show that a reduction in the award is necessary to align it with the victim’s actual losses. We, and the People, agree. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUND In January 2019, Defendant drove a used 2012 Bentley automobile off the sales lot of Phillips Auto without permission. The vehicle was recovered six days later. Defendant pleaded no contest to driving a vehicle without consent. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) In February 2019, the trial court sentenced him to a prison term and further ordered him to pay restitution to Phillips Auto in the amount of $27,450. Of this amount, $2,450 was stipulated as actual damages to the vehicle. The remaining $25,000 was the trial court’s estimate of lost value based on testimony from a Phillips Auto employee that the vehicle had to be reported as stolen to CARFAX, which would reduce the value of the vehicle by 25 to 30 percent. At the time of the original restitution hearing, Defendant was under the impression that the vehicle had not been sold, as it was listed on the Phillips Auto website for $99,960. Defendant appealed both his sentence and the restitution order. In an unpublished decision, People v. Lockett (Dec. 18, 2020, B296211 [nonpub. opn.]), we remanded with instructions to modify the sentence but found no abuse of discretion in fixing the amount of the restitution award.