People v. Mehtizada CA6

Filed 5/25/22 P. v. Mehtizada CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H049052 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1801582)

v.

TEYMUR MEHTIZADA,

Defendant and Appellant.

The trial court granted Teymur Mehtizada probation for offenses involving his sale of vehicles with fraudulently reset odometers. Mehtizada appeals the restitution requiring him to pay G.S. $7,000, the price G.S. paid for one such car, which G.S. testified was “not working.” Mehtizada maintains that he was entitled to an offset against the purchase price based on a Kelley Blue Book retail valuation for a vehicle of the same year, make, model, and actual mileage. We conclude the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the offset. I. BACKGROUND1 In April 2016, G.S. paid $7,000 to buy a 2008 Toyota Prius from Mehtizada. The ad for the car described it as in good condition, with 68,000 miles. Mehtizada was never

1 Because Mehtizada pleaded guilty prior to trial, we derive the facts from the preliminary hearing transcript.

the licensed owner of the Prius, nor was he a licensed automobile dealer. He did not disclose to G.S. any issues with the car’s odometer. As of the May 17, 2019, preliminary hearing, the Prius was “broken” and “not working.” In December 2018, M.M. paid $8,000 to buy a 2006 Honda Pilot from Mehtizada, who claimed to be its original owner. As with G.S., Mehtizada did not disclose to M.M. any issue with the Pilot’s odometer, which reflected approximately 68,000 miles. But on his way home from the purchase, M.M. became suspicious when he noticed several dashboard lights were not functioning. As it turned out, a previous registered owner had sold the Pilot to a third party for $2,600 with over 200,000 miles. M.M. would not have purchased the vehicle had he known it actually had more than 200,000 miles on it. Mehtizada was arrested after attempting to sell a third vehicle to investigators with the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). He admitted to the investigators that he knew the odometer reading was incorrect. On May 16, 2019, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed the operative information accusing Mehtizada of two counts of grand theft of property over $950 (counts 1 and 3, Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)2) for the sales to M.M. and G.S., respectively, and one count each of attempted grand theft of property over $950 (count 2, §§ 664/487), acting as a dealer without a license (count 4, Veh. Code, § 11700), and unlawful attempted sale of a vehicle (count 5, Veh. Code, § 12120). On November 25, 2019, by agreement, the prosecution amended the information to allege counts 6 and 7, violations of section 460, subdivision (b). The same day, Mehtizada pled no contest to these two counts. On February 4, 2021, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Mehtizada on probation for a period of two years. As to restitution, the trial court ordered Mehtizada to pay $4,325 to M.M., representing the $8,000 purchase price paid by