People v. Mayfield CA1/3

Filed 12/13/23 P. v. Mayfield CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A167825 v. ALBERT ANTONIO MAYFIELD, (Napa County Super. Ct. No. 22CR002824) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Albert Antonio Mayfield pleaded no contest to charges of stealing a 2006 pickup truck and evading a police officer with reckless driving, a pursuit that ended with defendant totaling the vehicle. The trial court awarded the victim restitution in the amount of $95,610.24, which was the retail value of a new 2023 truck of the same make and model. Defendant argues, and the People concede, that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding the victim a windfall well beyond the value of his actual loss. We agree, and so we vacate the restitution order and remand for a further restitution hearing. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2022, a 2006 Ford F-350 pickup truck registered to Christopher Miller was reported stolen. Defendant was found driving the stolen truck but he refused to pull over for police officers. The pursuit ended when defendant

1

crashed the truck into a residence, damaging the home and totaling the truck. Defendant was charged with evading an officer against traffic (Veh. Code, § 2800.4; count one), evading an officer with reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); count two), and unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle with an allegation of a prior conviction (Veh. Code, § 666.5; count three). He pleaded no contest to counts two and three and admitted the prior conviction allegation attendant to count three, and the People dismissed count one. The trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of five years and four months in prison. The trial court held a hearing to determine an appropriate amount of restitution to award the victims.1 The probation report stated that Miller’s insurer had settled his claim for the stolen vehicle in the amount of $21,568.65, but the prosecutor contended the “victim’s insurance should play no part in calculating the restitution owed by the defendant.” The trial court agreed. The prosecutor then argued that repairing the vehicle “wasn’t an option,” and that Miller had been unable to locate a Ford dealership in the area with a like vehicle. Thus, in order for Miller to obtain a replacement, the prosecutor urged the court to award the value of a new Ford F-350 truck in the amount of $95,610.24. Defense counsel countered that the insurance settlement amount was relevant to determining the value of the stolen vehicle because “the insurance company, which has a great deal of interest in this, took some time investigating what the value of like property was, and paid that amount.” Defense counsel also pointed out that the Kelley Blue Book value of a like