People v. Mena CA5

Filed 8/26/22 P. v. Mena CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F082294 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MCR061561B) v.

ROBERTO CARLOS MENA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT * APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Madera County. Joseph A. Soldani, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Madera Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Joshua G. Wilson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.

Roberto Carlos Mena operated a marijuana grow in a rented building. He stole electricity to power the grow. He got caught and pled no contest to stealing electricity (Pen. Code,1 § 498, subd. (d)).2 The court granted Mena probation and ordered him to pay restitution to the power company. Several months later, the building owner filed a request for restitution. Following a few more filings from the parties and a few more hearings, the court granted the owner’s request by modifying Mena’s probation terms to include restitution to the owner. On appeal, Mena claims the building owner lacked standing to request restitution “through modification of the terms of probation.” The People oppose. We conclude standing is irrelevant. The pertinent question is whether the court could modify probation to include a term requiring restitution payable to the building owner. Because the answer is yes, we affirm the trial court’s order. BACKGROUND Mena pled no contest to violating section 498, subdivision (d), for stealing electricity. He stole the electricity to power a marijuana grow in a rented building. The trial court granted probation and ordered Mena to pay restitution to the power company. Later, the building owner filed a “motion to modify restitution order.” The motion was based on section 1202.4, subdivision (f). The owner’s damages were later described as “repairs to the building,” “[a] dangerous building citation,” “[a]ttorneys fees and expenses,” and “[l]ost rent.” Mena filed a response arguing the owner was not a “victim” to stealing electricity within the meaning of section 1202.4, subdivision (k). At a hearing following Mena’s filed response, the court agreed the building owner was not a “victim” under 1202.4, subdivision (k). But the court believed it was