People v. Burrell CA3

Filed 6/23/22 P. v. Burrell CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C094533

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STKCRFDV20170011946) v.

WILLIAM EARL BURRELL, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant William Earl Burrell, Jr. challenges the trial court’s order requiring him to pay $2,000 in restitution to the California Victim Compensation Board (VCB) after he pled no contest to one count of domestic abuse. Specifically, he contends this order was unauthorized because the prosecution did not submit sufficient evidence that the amount of restitution was verified as a necessary expense. We conclude the prosecution established the amount of restitution pursuant to the applicable statutory provisions. Accordingly, we will affirm the restitution order.

1

I. BACKGROUND Defendant pled no contest to one count of domestic abuse (Pen. Code, § 273.5) and admitted a prior serious felony conviction.1 Based on the negotiated plea, the trial court sentenced him to six years in prison. Following sentencing, the prosecution sent defendant a notice explaining that the victim had requested $2,902.69 for relocation expenses and the VCB had paid the victim $2,000. The notice specified that the court was required by section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(4)(A) to “order restitution payable to VCB.” Likewise, the hearing waiver and hearing request forms attached to the notice both indicated that the restitution sought would be paid to the VCB. The notice also included records certified under penalty of perjury showing that the VCB paid $2,000 to the victim for relocation expenses, based on bills showing apartment rental expenses of $2,902.69. At the restitution hearing, the prosecution relied on these certified records as supporting the VCB’s request for restitution. Defense counsel did not object to the VCB’s decision to pay the victim for relocation expenses. Instead, defense counsel objected that the trial court could not order restitution because the relocation expenses were not verified by law enforcement or a mental health treatment provider as being necessary for the personal safety or emotional well-being of the victim, as required by section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3)(I). The trial court noted the objection, but ordered restitution in the amount of $2,000. Defendant timely appealed from the restitution order. II. DISCUSSION Defendant contends that the trial court erred by ordering defendant to pay $2,000 to the victim because the prosecution failed to introduce evidence from law enforcement