(Super. Ct. No. TF033953A)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro , J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Timothy A. Glazier pleaded guilty to sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger than defendant and oral copulation with a person under 18. The trial court placed defendant on formal probation for five years, with terms and conditions including 120 days in jail, and reserved jurisdiction regarding imposition of victim restitution. The trial court subsequently imposed $119,397.15 in victim restitution without holding a restitution hearing. The record does not indicate that the trial court served defendant with the restitution order.
Over a year later, the probation officer reported that defendant violated his probation by not paying restitution. Defendant moved for a restitution hearing. The trial court discharged the allegation that defendant violated his probation, denied defendant's motion for a restitution hearing, and reiterated its prior order of $119,397.15 in victim restitution.
Defendant contends the trial court erred in ordering restitution without a restitution hearing. The Attorney General responds that we should dismiss defendant's appeal as untimely.
We conclude that defendant's appeal was timely and that he is entitled to a restitution hearing. We will reverse the restitution order and remand for such a hearing.
Defendant entered his guilty plea on January 6, 2009, pursuant to a plea agreement. Articulating the terms of the plea agreement at the plea colloquy, the prosecutor said, "Defense Counsel has been put on notice that the People anticipate a large request for restitution, approaching the amount of $126,000, which is what the victim's father paid for her therapy based on this case. We understand there are some other issues out there and that there will be a restitution hearing and we will have to prove out restitution. So as far as today, restitution will just be referred out to Probation for determination of restitution." Defense counsel added that the victim had been in treatment prior to the crimes for pre-existing conditions, and the defense would need discovery to determine the extent to which particular treatment was related to this case.
The trial court took defendant's plea. After defense counsel waived the presentence report and arraignment for judgment and sentencing, the trial court pronounced sentence and reserved jurisdiction regarding victim restitution, directing the San Joaquin County Probation Department (Department) to prepare a report on restitution. The trial court indicated that upon receipt of the report, it would transmit copies to defendant, defense counsel, and the People.
The trial court then stated, "If the court fixes the amount of restitution based on that recommendation and the defendant agrees with the amount of restitution ordered, the restitution will be paid directly through the Probation Department of San Joaquin County. If on the other hand, the defendant disagrees with the recommendation or any court order, he may request and receive a restitution hearing as provided by law."
On March 2, 2009, the Department filed a supplemental report on victim restitution with the trial court. The one-page report stated the victim's father sent a restitution request seeking $119,397.15 in restitution, and the Department recommended that defendant be ordered to pay this amount in victim restitution. The report contained no other evidence or allegations supporting the requested restitution. ...