People v. Faulkner CA3

Filed 12/27/23 P. v. Faulkner CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097884

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CF00079)

v.

DREW AYER FAULKNER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Drew Ayer Faulkner pled no contest to arson of property of another. The trial court ordered defendant to pay $2,879.86 in restitution to the victim John C. for his lost wages. On appeal, defendant argues the trial court’s ordered restitution for lost wages is not supported by substantial evidence and thus constitutes an abuse of discretion. We affirm.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND According to the probation report, defendant set ablaze John’s shade structure and had an argument with John’s wife, during which he implied future bad acts. In a written statement, defendant wrote that he “[p]oured gas on it and then threw a rag on it to start the fire.” He pled no contest to one count of arson of property of another. The trial court ordered defendant to pay John $91.80 in restitution for his damaged property. The prosecution later filed a motion to modify restitution. It sought to compensate John for his lost wages in the amount of $14,399.34, a figure based on John missing 17 days of work at a rate of $847.02 per day. At an evidentiary hearing, John testified he is a long-haul truck driver by trade, though he was not employed at the time of the arson. About seven weeks before the arson, he “resigned” from his prior trucking job “with the ability to come back.” He left the company “to do some projects around the home.” John opted to resign rather than just take time off because his employer would only give him two weeks off, not the three weeks he requested. His prior job was not contract based; he was employed full time. John testified he worked regularly prior to his resignation, having “only [returned] home for two weeks total . . . in the two years prior.” After his hiatus, he planned to return to work as a trucker at one of the “thousands of companies out there.” He didn’t necessarily intend to return to work at his prior employer, given he believed he could secure better wages and/or benefits elsewhere. Rather than return to work after the fire, John decided to stay home due to defendant’s previous threat directed at John’s wife. John did not seek a new trucking job until six months after the arson. During his testimony, John clarified he was not seeking restitution for lost wages in the amount of $14,399.34, a figure he said was calculated by the prosecution, not him. Rather than the $847.02 daily wage put forth by the prosecution, he said he earns “generally” between $300 and $350 per day while working as a long-haul truck driver, though it “doesn’t always work out that way.”