Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People v. Britton Edward Mcfetridge

October 4, 2011

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
BRITTON EDWARD MCFETRIDGE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. No. 09F01696)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull , J.

P. v. McFetridge

CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

After a jury deadlocked and the trial court declared a mistrial, defendant Britton Edward McFetridge entered a plea of no contest to committing a battery that inflicted serious bodily injury, in exchange for the dismissal of the other charge, the suspension of imposition of sentence, and a grant of probation. Among the conditions were payment to the victim of restitution. The trial court granted two days of conduct credits for two days of presentence custody, and ordered defendant to report to jail on June 4, 2010.

Following a contested restitution hearing, the court took the matter under submission. After determining there had been nearly $18,000 in medical expenses, it set restitution in that amount.

On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred when it impliedly overruled his objection to evidence the prosecutor submitted in support of the request for restitution. We affirm the order.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

The prosecutor recited the stipulated factual basis for the plea. Defendant struck the victim in the face. This resulted in three fractures, and required the insertion of a metal plate.

At the restitution hearing, the prosecutor submitted the matter on an exhibit. It contained two letters from collection agents of a health plan that had a member with the same name as the victim (and included the superior court case number), which sought subrogation based on attached summaries of expenses paid to health-care providers on the date of the battery for injuries to a jaw and cheekbone (with two follow-up visits for eye problems). The total was approximately $18,000.

The prosecutor argued only that the victim was entitled to restitution for these expenses even though his insurance coverage meant that he did not pay them out of pocket. Defense counsel lodged objections "on foundation and hearsay grounds," which the court agreed to consider after reviewing the exhibit. Defense counsel argued that restitution for the medical expenses would be a windfall to the victim (ignoring the insurer's claim for subrogation). The parties agreed that the court could take the matter under submission without further argument. The court's subsequent order awarding the requested restitution did not include any express ruling on defendant's objections.

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues only that the prosecutor failed to provide any evidence to satisfy the criteria for admission of a business record under that exception to the hearsay rule. (Evid. Code, ยง 1271.) Therefore, he argues the court ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.