P. v. Flowers CA2/3

Filed 4/2/13 P. v. Flowers CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B237682

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA068019) v.

LISA MARIA FLOWERS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jessica Silvers, Judge. Affirmed. Jennifer Hansen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth C. Byrne and Shira B. Seigle, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

Lisa Maria Flowers appeals the judgment entered following her plea of no contest to one count of grand theft. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a).)1 Flowers contends the order directing her to pay victim restitution to family members of the named victim must be stricken as unauthorized by her plea bargain or sections 1192.3 and 1202.4. However, Flowers agreed to pay actual restitution to any victim, if appropriate, and the family members of the named victim themselves qualify as victims for the purpose of restitution. (§ 1202.4, subd. (k)(3)(A) & (k)(3)(B).) We therefore find no violation of Flowers’s plea bargain or the cited statutes and affirm the judgment. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The report of the probation officer indicates Flowers worked as a care provider to the elderly. She stole cash and property, primarily jewelry, from the homes of her employers and their friends. She was charged by complaint with three counts of grand theft and three counts of petty theft with prior theft related offenses. Shirley Dubin was the named victim in counts 1 and 4; Florence and Edward Shevick were the named victims in counts 2 and 5; and, Betty Avidan was the named victim in counts 3 and 6. The complaint further alleged the victims were over the age of 60 years and that Flowers had been convicted of theft related offenses in 1999, 2002 and 2007, and had served a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). Pursuant to a plea bargain, Flowers pleaded no contest to grand theft in count 1 in exchange for a sentence of two years in state prison and dismissal of the remaining counts. Flowers initialed a box that indicated she understood the trial court would order her, “if appropriate, [to] pay actual victim restitution to any victim.” Before accepting Flowers’s change of plea, the trial court indicated that, as part of the plea agreement, Flowers would be expected to pay restitution for losses on all counts pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. Thereafter, the trial court conducted a restitution hearing at which Shirley Dubins’s daughter, Heather Dubin, testified her mother is 86 years of age and she suffers