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. Jackie Lester Shoults

December 21, 2011

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
JACKIE LESTER SHOULTS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. No. CRF102148)

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

P. v. Shoults

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Defendant Jackie Lester Shoults pleaded no contest to vehicle theft and admitted a prior conviction. The trial court imposed a stipulated four-year prison term and awarded $5,814.09 in victim restitution.

Defendant contends on appeal that the trial court (1) abused its discretion in ordering restitution for home security items, because those items were unrelated to the crime for which defendant was convicted; (2) abused its discretion in ordering restitution for damage to the car, because the damage occurred after defendant was arrested; (3) abused its discretion in ordering restitution to Pam Swanstrom, because she was not a victim and her losses were unnecessary; and (4) erred in failing to provide a basis for its decision.

We conclude (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering restitution for the home security items, because there was sufficient information indicating that the victims' fear for their safety arose from the crime for which defendant was convicted; (2) substantial evidence supported a determination that the car damage was caused by defendant; (3) Pam Swanstrom was a victim of defendant's crime, and her loss was attributable to the crime; and (4) the trial court based the restitution award on the preliminary hearing, the evidence provided by the victims, and the parties' briefs, providing a sufficient basis for appellate review of the restitution award.

We will affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

Woodland police received a report of a residential burglary at the home of Bruce and Patricia Ryland. The Rylands' 2004 Honda Civic and various electronic items were stolen. On July 15, 2009, a San Francisco police officer stopped defendant for making an illegal left turn. Defendant was driving the stolen Honda Civic.

Defendant pleaded no contest to theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 2) and admitted a prior conviction for vehicle theft in exchange for a stipulated four-year prison term. The remaining counts were dismissed as part of the plea, but the count for receiving stolen property was dismissed with a Harvey*fn1 waiver for restitution. The trial court imposed the stipulated four-year prison term and ordered various fines and fees.

The People sought restitution for the following: repair of the stolen Civic and a lock retrofit ($1,518.72), car rental expenses ($738), car impound fees ($339.75), bridge tolls ($12), an impound yard parking fee ($10), towing from San Francisco to Woodland ($543), towing from the Woodland Police Department to the repair shop ($55), gasoline ($62.03), Bruce Ryland's lost wages ($325.52), Patricia Ryland's lost wages ($493.85), lost wages for Patricia's mother, Pam Swanstrom ($151.82), an Avalonics wireless home security system ($975), rekeying the house ($356.81), and a new deadbolt for the house ...


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.