People v. Delgado CA3

Filed 2/10/23 P. v. Delgado CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096161 c Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20F7124)

v.

DANNY DON DELGADO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Danny Don Delgado appeals from a postconviction order granting the People’s motion to require him to pay approximately $3,600 in victim restitution. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel informed defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief, and he has not filed one. In the interest of judicial economy, we exercise our discretion to independently review the record.

1

We conclude the trial court erred in awarding victim restitution as it relates to relocation expenses under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3)(I) because there was no verification by law enforcement or a mental health treatment provider supporting the necessity of the victim’s relocation costs. (Statutory section citations that follow are found in the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.) We reverse the restitution order as to relocation expenses and remand for further proceedings, including affording the People the opportunity to provide the required verification.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS In October 2020 defendant was involved in a domestic dispute with his girlfriend while they lived together in a fifth-wheel trailer on defendant’s mother’s property. During an argument, defendant broke several items of his girlfriend’s property, including a mirror, cabinet, and table, and also took her purse, phone, and keys. Defendant followed his girlfriend outside the trailer and threatened and assaulted her. His girlfriend called police, and the next day, an officer forced open the trailer door (since defendant had taken the victim’s keys) and searched inside where he saw the damaged mirror. In December 2020, defendant pleaded no contest to one count of corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior strike conviction (§ 1170.12) in exchange for eight years in prison and dismissal of the remaining charges and allegations. After waiving referral for a probation report, the trial court immediately sentenced defendant to the stipulated term of eight years. The court ordered victim restitution, but reserved jurisdiction on the amount. Nothing in the record shows defendant appealed the judgment. In June 2021, the People sought approximately $3,000 in direct victim restitution based on costs to replace property defendant or the police had damaged during the October 2020 altercation, and costs related to moving the fifth-wheel trailer from the property. To support the restitution request, the People submitted pictures of the