People v. Achterberg CA2/6

Filed 9/22/22 P. v. Achterberg CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B317880 (Super. Ct. No. 21CR01702) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

ALLEN WAYNE ACHTERBERG,

Defendant and Appellant.

Allen Wayne Achterberg appeals from the restitution order entered after he pleaded no contest to making criminal threats against Jane Doe (Pen. Code,1 § 422, subd. (a)) and stalking her (§ 646.9, subd. (b)). The trial court ordered him to serve three years of formal probation and pay $2,400 in restitution. Achterberg contends the restitution order should be vacated because prosecutors failed to show his criminal conduct caused Jane’s losses. We affirm.

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Achterberg and Jane were in an abusive relationship for 14 years. They had three children together. In September 2021, Achterberg pleaded no contest to making criminal threats against Jane in March 2021 and to stalking her between December 2020 and March 2021. In exchange for his plea, Achterberg agreed to serve three years of formal probation with domestic violence terms (including a 10-year protective order) and pay restitution. The probation report submitted before the restitution hearing disclosed that Achterberg destroyed some of Jane’s property while the two shared an apartment and refused to let Jane retrieve other items after she moved out. Jane requested $2,400 in restitution for property that was damaged, destroyed, or withheld; dog shelter fines incurred; and to cover her half of the deposit on the apartment she rented with Achterberg. At the restitution hearing, Achterberg objected that Jane’s request included losses incurred before the offenses to which he had pleaded occurred. The prosecutor clarified that Jane requested restitution “for items that were either broken [or] stolen, or expenses that were incurred” between December 2020 and March 2021. Achterberg then objected that the items for which Jane requested restitution were unrelated to his underlying offenses since she had left them behind when she moved out of the apartment. He also objected to paying restitution for the deposit on their apartment since Jane did not remove her name from the lease and was not named in eviction proceedings. The prosecutor responded that Achterberg continuously threatened and stalked Jane. She could not retrieve her property from the apartment without fear of contact with Achterberg.