Filed 9/17/26 P. v. Curtis CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
THE PEOPLE, B348135
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 24DWCF00944)
v.
JAVEON CURTIS,
Defendant and Appellant.
Following a negotiated plea, Javeon Curtis (defendant) was
convicted of driving or taking a vehicle without the owner’s
consent in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision
(a). The trial court suspended execution of a three-year state
prison sentence and placed defendant on probation. After a
separate restitution hearing, the court ordered defendant to pay
the victim, Andre McCoy, $2,650. Defendant filed a timely notice
of appeal from the restitution order.
His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On June
23, 2026, we sent defendant a letter notifying him of his counsel’s
brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or
letter stating any appellate argument he wanted this court to
consider. That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no
brief or letter. We have reviewed the entire record and, finding
no arguable issues, affirm the order.
Defendant was stopped by the police while driving a
motorcycle that was reported stolen. The motorcycle belonged to
McCoy.
A restitution hearing began on July 21, 2025, and was
continued to August 8, 2025, whereupon it concluded. McCoy
testified about the motorcycle’s value (between $2,500 and $3,000
based on an internet search) as well as the damage he observed
after it was recovered and impounded. He also testified that, due
to the impounded/damaged motorcycle, he lacked transportation
and consequently lost income. McCoy indicated the lock and
chain he used to secure the motorcycle had been broken. The
court admitted photographs and video of the motorcycle and
related valuation evidence.
On August 8, 2025, the People advised the court that the
motorcycle was no longer at the impound lot and was likely sold
to cover storage fees. The court admitted additional valuation
evidence and ordered defendant to pay McCoy $2,500 for the
motorcycle, $100 for lost wages, and $50 for the lock and chain,
for a total of $2,650.
A trial court must order a defendant to pay restitution for
economic losses suffered by a victim as a result of the defendant’s
criminal conduct. (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f).) The
2
prosecution bears the burden of proving the amount of loss by a
preponderance of the evidence, and the restitution order is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. (People v. Gemelli (2008) 161
Cal.App.4th 1539, 1542–1543 (Gemelli).) We will not disturb the
order if it is supported by a rational method of calculation and
substantial evidence. (People v. Prosser (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th
682, 689–690.)
The record supports the restitution award. McCoy’s
testimony concerning the motorcycle’s value and the losses
resulting from its theft, together with the photographs, video,
and valuation evidence, provided a sufficient basis for the court’s
determination. A victim’s statement concerning the value of
stolen property may constitute prima facie evidence of loss.
(Prosser, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 690; People v. Pittman
(2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1252, 1258.) Once the prosecutor made a
prima facie showing of economic loss resulting from defendant’s
criminal conduct, the burden shifted to defendant to disprove the
amount claimed (Gemelli, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at p. 1543);
defendant did not provide contradictory evidence.
The court acted within its discretion in using the
motorcycle’s fair market value as the measure of the property
loss and in awarding restitution for the lost wages and damaged
lock and chain. (People v. Portillo (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 577, 583
[marketplace prices may constitute circumstantial evidence of
fair market value].) McCoy testified regarding each category of
loss, and the court reasonably relied on that testimony and the
other admitted evidence.
We have independently examined the entire record on
appeal and are satisfied that defendant’s appellate counsel has
fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable
3
issues exist. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
Defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the
Wende procedure and our independent review of the record,
received adequate and effective appellate review of the order
entered against him in this case. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000)
528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123–
124.)
DISPOSITION
The restitution order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
KUMAR, J.*
We concur:
BAKER, Acting P. J.
MOOR, J.
* Retired Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI,
section 6 of the California Constitution.
4