P. v. Animashaun
Filed 5/13/13 P. v. Animashaun CA2/8
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
EIGHT
>
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD J. ANIMASHAUN, Defendant and Appellant. | B242996 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA355173) |
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior
Court of
County,
Monica Bachner, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Alex
Coolman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala
D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Assistant Attorney General,
Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, and Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr.,
Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________________
Richard Animashaun pleaded guilty to making
burglary, and admitted one prior strike conviction. (Pen. Code, §§ 422; 664/459; and 667,
subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).)
minute order from the sentencing hearing and the abstract of judgment, to
conform the terms of victim restitution to the court’s orally pronounced
terms. As corrected, we affirm the
judgment.
FACTS
In May 2009, the People filed an
information charging Animashaun with making criminal threats, attempted
burglary, and vandalism causing damages of $400 or more.
Animashaun had suffered two prior “strike†convictions which also qualified as
prior serious felony convictions.
name="_ftnref3" title="">[3] (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds.
(a)-(d); 667, subd. (a)(1).) At a jury
trial in late 2009, the evidence showed that Animashaun behaved badly after
convincing himself that a tenant in a neighboring unit at their apartment
building had called police on Animashaun.
In December 2009, a jury returned verdicts finding Animashaun guilty of
the three charged offenses noted above.
The trial court sentenced Animashaun to a total aggregate sentence of
nine years in the state prison. We
thereafter reversed the judgment, finding that jurors had engaged in
inadvertent misconduct when they used a juror’s laptop computer to listen to a
CD audio recording of a 911 call which had been admitted at trial, and heard
both the call which had been admitted at trial, as well as another 911 call
which had not been admitted. (
opn.].)
On remand, Animashaun pleaded guilty
to making criminal threats and attempted first degree burglary, and admitted
one prior strike conviction.
(§§ 422; 664/459; 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds.
(a)-(d).) The trial court sentenced
Animashaun to a total aggregate term of six years in state prison. The vandalism count was dismissed with a
waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
DISCUSSION
Animashaun
contends, the People concede, and we agree that the trial court’s minute order
from the sentencing hearing, and the
abstract of judgment, do not conform to the court’s oral pronouncements at the
sentencing hearing as to victim restitution.
The minute
order and abstract of judgment refer to the tenant
who was the victim of Animashaun’s threats and attempted burglary. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court,
the prosecutor and defense counsel had discussed restitution, and it had been
generally agreed that the tenant had not suffered any monetary loss. Further, the court and the attorneys had
agreed that the issue of restitution to the landlord
who had been the victim of the vandalism count potentially remained an
issue. The court stated that it would
retain jurisdiction on the issue of restitution as to the landlord.
The minute
order and abstract of judgment must conform to the trial court’s orally
pronounced terms regarding restitution.
(People v. Mitchell (2001) 26
Cal.4th 181, 185-186.) For this reason,
the minute order and abstract of judgment should not refer to the tenant in the
context of victim restitution.
DISPOSITON
The trial court
is directed to correct its minute order
from the sentencing hearing, and the abstract of judgment, to conform
restitution to the court’s pronounced terms as to victim restitution. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
BIGELOW, P. J.
We concur:
RUBIN, J. GRIMES, J.
further section references are to the Penal Code.
information included a count charging Animashaun with dissuading a
witness. (§ 136.1, subd.
(c)(1).) That count was dismissed at
trial and is not involved in the current appeal.
