People v. Dunlap CA3

Filed 7/18/22 P. v. Dunlap CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C093842

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 18F5099)

v.

NANCY JANE DUNLAP,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Nancy Jane Dunlap pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property, including a gun cabinet and firearms. The trial court ordered her to pay $18,258.41 in restitution, which represented the value of the gun cabinet, the victim’s travel expenses, and the value of the stolen firearms and other items. Defendant appeals, contending the trial court abused its discretion in ordering her to pay restitution beyond the value of the gun cabinet. She argues there was no evidence showing she was involved in the theft or that she ever possessed the firearms. We disagree and affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A police officer responded to defendant’s residence, where she resided with her codefendant boyfriend, to investigate a landlord-tenant dispute. The officer noticed a gun

1

cabinet and several cardboard and plastic boxes of personal property stacked in front of defendant’s residence. Defendant’s landlady told the officer that she believed the boxes of personal property were stolen because defendant and codefendant had been arrested for theft in the past. The landlady also gave the officer a stack of driver’s licenses she found at defendant’s residence. Defendant told the officer that she inherited the gun cabinet and the personal property from her late grandparents and denied they were stolen. After leaving the property, the officer reviewed the driver’s licenses and found one belonging to T.S. T.S. had reported five days earlier that a trailer containing all of his personal belongings, including a gun cabinet, 15 firearms, and cardboard and plastic boxes of personal property, were stolen from him. Upon reviewing the photos of the stolen property from T.S., the officer determined they were similar, if not identical, to the ones he saw in front defendant’s residence. The officer returned to defendant’s residence with several other officers the next day. When they arrived, the officer noticed the gun cabinet, along with several other items that had been in front of defendant’s residence the day before, were gone. The stolen trailer was parked near defendant’s residence with its door open and was mostly empty inside. Defendant and codefendant exited their residence after multiple orders from the officers and were arrested. After she was arrested, defendant admitted she lied about the ownership of the gun cabinet and some of the personal property in front of her residence. She told the officer that codefendant and another person had been working together to move the trailer in an attempt to conceal it and the property therein. She claimed she did not know how codefendant came into possession of the trailer, but informed the officer of the location of the firearms. Defendant indicated that she refused to leave her residence at first when ordered to by officers, as she was waiting for codefendant to turn himself in. T.S. traveled to defendant’s residence and identified multiple items belonging to him. Neither the gun cabinet nor the firearms were recovered.