People v. Zamora CA4/1

Filed 8/24/22 P. v. Zamora CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D079434

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF004153)

ENRIQUE ZAMORA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Monica Lepe-Negrete, Judge. Affirmed. Charles R. Khoury, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting, Anthony Da Silva, and Kathryn Kirschbaum, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Enrique Zamora pleaded no contest to criminal threats (Pen. Code,1

§ 422, subd. (a)). Zamora also gave a Harvey2 waiver regarding dismissed and unfiled charges arising from the events in this case. Zamora later violated probation and was sentenced to a two-year term. The court held a hearing on the victim’s request for restitution for damage done by Zamora. The court utilized the probation officer’s report for the factual basis for restitution. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered Zamora to pay victim restitution in the amount of $1,180. Zamora appeals, challenging only the restitution order. He contends the court should not have relied on the probation report for the facts regarding damage done by him. Thus, Zamora argues there is no factual basis for the restitution order. We will reject Zamora’s arguments. In the change of plea, Zamora stipulated to the police report as the factual basis for the plea and gave a Harvey waiver. We will find substantial evidence supports the award of restitution. The trial court did not abuse its discretion. STATEMENT OF FACTS The factual basis of the no contest plea is set forth in the probation officer’s report. The report was also used as the basis of the restitution order. The respondent has included an accurate summary of the facts. We will adopt it for convenience. “[Zamora] stipulated to the facts contained in the police report, which is not included in the record, as the factual basis for his plea of no contest to