P. v. Breschi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 6/11/13  P. v. Breschi CA6

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

 

SIXTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,   Plaintiff and Respondent,       v.   RENO LUCKY BRESCHI,   Defendant and Appellant.

H038247      (Santa Clara County       Super. Ct. No. C1085746)

 

            On June 15, 2011, Reno Lucky Breschi
pleaded no contest to all of the counts he was charged with and admitted the
two prison prior convictions.  He did so
with the understanding that the court would sentence him to four years in href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">state prison.  

            The charges
were grand theft of an automobile in count 1, grand theft of a value over $400
counts 2 and 6, unauthorized use of motor vehicles counts 3 and 4, receiving a
stolen motor vehicle count 5, passing bad checks counts 7 and 8, receiving
stolen property counts 9 and 10, second
degree burglary counts 11 and 12, and forgery counts 13 through 17.  The information also alleged that he had
served two prior prison terms.

            At a
sentencing hearing on August 22, 2011, the court imposed an aggregate state
prison term of four years consisting of the mid-term of two years on count 1
with concurrent mid-terms of two years each for counts 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 and imposed concurrent mid-terms of two years each on
counts 5, 9 and 10 and it then stayed the sentences imposed thereby pursuant to
Penal Code section 654.  The court then
enhanced the term with two one year terms for the prior prison
convictions. 

            The nub of
the case and the only claim on appeal is the amount the court ordered the
appellant to pay in restitution.  It
ordered $40,000 to victims Richard and Julie August and $550 to South Valley
National Bank.  Reno Lucky Breschi
demanded a restitution hearing particularly as to the victims Richard and Julie
August and the claim relating to their F250 truck. 

            The details
of the 17 charged offenses shall not trouble us here because the single appeal
that Reno Lucky Breschi makes and his sole claim is that the trial court erred
by not giving him a restitution hearing. 
To that claim the Attorney General responds “because [Penal Code]
section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(1), allows a party to seek modification of the
restitution order, respondent does not oppose remand for a restitution hearing
on the totality of the Augusts’ claim.” 
We agree and accept the concession and will remand the matter to the
trial court for a contested restitution
hearing regarding the Augusts’ claim as well as for determination as to
amounts that may be due Wells Fargo Bank.



 

 

 

                                                                        ______________________________________

                                                                                                RUSHING, P.J.

 

 

 

 

 

 

WE CONCUR:

 

 

          

 

 

 

____________________________________

PREMO, J.

 

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________________

ELIA,
J.