PEOPLE v. JONES,
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>PEOPLE v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/><b >PEOPLE v. JONES,</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 8/11/10<br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u>CERTIFIED<br /> FOR PUBLICATION</u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/>IN THE COURT OF<br /> APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/>THIRD APPELLATE<br /> DISTRICT<br /> <br/>(El<br /> Dorado)<br /> <br/>----<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=362 valign=top ><br /> <br/>THE PEOPLE,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Plaintiff and Respondent,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>STEVE DOUGLAS JONES,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Defendant and Appellant.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=274 valign=top ><br /> <br/>C063113<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>(Super.<br /> Ct. No. P07CRM1117)<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> APPEAL<br /> from an order of the Superior Court<br /> of El Dorado<br /> County, Douglas C. Phimister, Judge. Reversed with directions.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Robert<br /> Navarro, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Edmund<br /> G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney<br /> General, Michael P. Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Charles A.<br /> French, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Jeffrey D. Firestone, Deputy<br /> Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> In this driving<br /> under the influence case, the trial court ordered defendant Steve Douglas Jones<br /> to pay victim restitution in the sum of $4,468.40, but in doing so failed to<br /> make a clear statement of the calculation method it used to reach that<br /> figure. We conclude this failure<br /> amounted to an abuse of discretion and accordingly reverse the restitution<br /> order and remand the case for further proceedings on the issue of victim<br /> restitution. For guidance on remand, we<br /> address the application of proximate cause to an award of victim restitution.<br /> <br/>FACTUAL<br /> AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND<br /> <br/> Pursuant to a plea<br /> agreement, defendant pled no contest to driving with .08 percent or higher<br /> blood-alcohol concentration and admitted several prior convictions and that he<br /> had a blood-alcohol concentration in excess of .20 percent. As part of the agreement, a charge of hit and<br /> run (leaving the scene of an accident) was dismissed with a <i<br /> >Harvey</i>[1]<br /> waiver. The court granted defendant<br /> probation and ordered him to pay restitution to the victim of the hit and run,<br /> Cindy Townsend, in an amount to be determined. <br /> <br /> <br/> At a later restitution hearing, the victim (now<br /> Shipman-Townsend) testified about the restitution she was seeking. Shipman-Townsend and her husband own a<br /> construction business working as subcontractors. The damage defendant caused in the hit and<br /> run accident was to a camper they use in their business. They had spent $11,000 on the camper, but it<br /> appeared to Shipman-Townsend that defendant's insurance company was not going<br /> to pay to repair it but instead would â€