P. v. Lacerda
Filed 10/16/08 P. v. Lacerda 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. PAUL LACERDA, Defendant and Appellant. | H032782 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC631790) |
James Boelks motorcycle was stolen on May 25, 2006. Boelk had purchased the 1999 Yamaha motorcycle for $8,300 in March 2006, and he had ridden it only 13 miles before it was stolen. On May 31, 2006, defendant Paul Lacerda was seen speeding and doing wheelies on Boelks motorcycle just before he crashed into William Kellys semi-truck. Both the motorcycle and the truck were seriously damaged in the collision.
Defendant was charged by amended information with vehicle theft (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor reckless driving (Veh. Code, 23103, subd. (a)). He was convicted by jury trial of both counts. The court suspended imposition of sentence, and granted defendant probation conditioned on service of a 10-month jail term.
Defendants trial counsel and the prosecutor agreed that defendant owed restitution to Boelk of $7,680, and the court ordered him to pay that amount. The court initially stated that it was going to order defendant to pay $17,487.20 in restitution to Kelly, which was the cost of the repairs to Kellys truck. Kelly had requested $21,505 in restitution, which included both the repairs to his truck and compensation for his time off work due to his truck being out of service. Kelly had lost a week of work, and he submitted evidence that he would have earned over $5,000 for that week. The court informed defendant that he had a right to a hearing on restitution, and defendants trial counsel requested a hearing on the amount of restitution due Kelly.
At the restitution hearing, Kelly sought $18,958.70 in restitution. Defendants trial counsel objected to defendant being required to make restitution for the cost of replacing the dipstick, the rear mudflap, and a head lamp, and the cost of repairs to the right side fender of the truck. He argued that these parts of the truck had not been damaged in the collision. Kelly testified at the hearing that all of these items had required replacement or repair as a result of the collision. The court ordered defendant to pay $18,958.70 in restitution to Kelly. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the restitution orders.
Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts, but raises no issues. Defendant was notified of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf, but has failed to avail himself of the opportunity. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal.
The restitution orders are affirmed.
_______________________________
Mihara, J.
WE CONCUR:
_____________________________
Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P.J.
_____________________________
Duffy, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
