P. v. Jovel

Filed 8/22/06 P. v. Jovel CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Darlene E. Schempp, Judge. Affirmed.

Allison H. Ting, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Margaret E. Maxwell and Susan S. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * *

Appellant Carlos Jovel was convicted upon a guilty plea of grand theft by embezzlement (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a))[1] for stealing fans and inflatable signs from his employer. Execution of the upper term sentence of three years was suspended and appellant was placed on formal probation for five years. Appellant was given three days of presentence custody credit, and was ordered to pay a $20 court security assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $30 crime prevention fine (§ 1202.5), a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $200 parole revocation restitution fine that was suspended (§ 1202.45), and restitution to the victim in the minimum amount of $20,000 (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)). Following a victim restitution hearing, appellant was ordered to pay $143,290 in direct victim restitution.

Appellant contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to support an award of lost profits to the victim, and (2) imposition of the parole revocation restitution fine was improper because appellant was placed on probation. We disagree and affirm.

FACTS

Background

Air Dimensional Design (ADD) rents and sells large inflatable event signs, which are powered by two fans. Appellant worked for ADD for four years, the last two as the warehouse manager. The owner of ADD observed appellant on surveillance tape taking several boxes of merchandise from the warehouse and placing them into appellant's personal vehicle without permission. Undercover police officers set up a deal with appellant to purchase the fans and signs at half their retail price. Appellant removed fans and inflatable signs from ADD and met with an undercover officer. Appellant was arrested after other officers on surveillance observed his actions. After his arrest, appellant implicated a co-defendant.

Victim Restitution Hearing

Following sentencing, the trial court held a victim restitution hearing, during which appellant and one other witness, Nurit Gazit, testified. Gazit, who testified for the prosecution, was the vice-president of ADD and the wife of its owner. She had worked for ADD for nine years.

Gazit looked at ADD's â€