People v. Parker CA2/6
Filed 7/3/23 P. v. Parker 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B322913 (Super. Ct. No. 21F-04907) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)
v.
SAMANTHA RAE PARKER,
Defendant and Appellant.
Samantha Rae Parker appeals from a victim restitution order entered after she was sentenced to state prison for recklessly causing a fire. (Pen. Code,1 §§ 452, subd. (c), 1202.4.) Appellant was ordered to pay $5,636.25 in restitution to the City of Paso Robles Wastewater Treatment Plant (the Water Treatment Plant) for the purported costs of compensating the firefighters who responded to and extinguished the small fire that appellant started in the riverbed near the Water Treatment
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless 1
otherwise stated.
Plant. We agree with appellant that this order is erroneous because there is no evidence the Water Treatment Plant suffered the claimed losses or any other economic losses as a result of appellant’s conduct. Accordingly, we reverse. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In August 2021, appellant was charged in a complaint with arson of a structure or forest (§ 451, subd. (c) (count 1)), recklessly causing a fire (count 2), and possessing a drug ingestion device (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a) (count 3)). According to the police report, appellant was a transient who set a small fire in the riverbed near 3200 Sulphur Springs Road in the City of Paso Robles (the City). The City of Paso Robles Fire Department (the Fire Department) responded to the fire and quickly extinguished it; no structures were damaged. In February 2022 appellant pleaded no contest to count 2, the remaining counts were dismissed, and she was sentenced to two years in state prison. On May 3, 2022, the probation department filed a “restitution status determination memorandum” indicating that the Water Treatment Plant, which is located at 3200 Sulphur Springs Road, was submitting an attached request for $5,636.25 in victim restitution. The attached “restitution request form” identifies the Water Treatment Plant as the “Victim/Business Name.” The claimed “miscellaneous crime related losses” consist of a handwritten notation of the “cost[s] of response” to the fire, which were arrived at by obtaining the hourly rates of the various Fire Department employees who purportedly responded to the fire and multiplying those rates by an “incident time” of 3.75 hours. Although not otherwise identified, an individual named Melissa R. Luma signed the form to “certify under penalty of perjury . . . that the foregoing is a true and accurate statement
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)