People v. Bogdan CA3

Filed 9/30/22 P. v. Bogdan CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C094169

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62-174416)

v.

VYACHESLAV OLEGOVICH BOGDAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Vyacheslav Olegovich Bogdan contends the amount of restitution awarded to the victim of his crimes is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS Defendant stole a recreational vehicle (RV). The RV was being transferred from the manufacturer to the purchasing dealer, and defendant stole it while it was stopped for service. After stealing the RV, defendant went to the Department of Motor Vehicles and

1

fraudulently transferred the vehicle’s title to himself. Law enforcement recovered the RV and returned it to the dealer. Defendant pleaded no contest to vehicle theft and identity theft. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a); further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) The trial court awarded the dealer restitution. As part of the award, the court awarded $17,700 for economic losses. The dealer could not sell the RV as new because defendant had transferred title to himself, and he had damaged the RV while he possessed it. The trial court based the restitution award on the reduction in the RV’s fair market value based on the RV’s actual sales price. $17,700 was the difference between the value of the RV as new ($169,700) and the actual price for which the dealer sold the RV after repairing it ($152,000). Defendant contends the trial court erred by determining the RV’s loss of fair market value based on the RV’s actual sales price instead of the dealer’s listing price. The dealer had listed the RV for sale at $155,900. The RV sold for $3,900 less. Defendant claims insufficient evidence supports the trial court’s determination that the additional $3,900 loss in value between the listing price and the sales price was caused by his criminal conduct. He asks this court to reduce the $17,700 award by $3,900 to $13,800.