(Super. Ct. No. CRF102672)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte , 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Palvi Gill pleaded no contest to two counts of second degree burglary. After sentencing defendant to state prison, the trial court ordered her to pay restitution to four victims--including her former employer, Jon Dayco. Defendant contends that Dayco is not eligible for victim restitution because he is not a direct victim of the offenses, as required by Penal Code*fn1 section 1202.4, subdivision (k)(2). Because we agree, we shall strike the restitution award to Dayco and affirm the judgment as modified.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 10, 2010, the People charged defendant with five counts of second degree burglary against victims Jose Diaz and Ignacio Arellano (§ 459), four counts of grand theft against victims Diaz, Arellano, and Bank One computer system (§ 487, subd. (a)), and two separate counts of forgery against unnamed victims (§§ 470, subd.(d), 476a, subd. (a)).
On March 4, 2011, defendant entered a plea of no contest to count 1 (second degree burglary against Arellano) and count 6 (second degree burglary against victim Diaz); the remaining counts were dismissed with a Harvey*fn2 waiver. On June 22, 2011, the trial court sentenced defendant to a term of three years in state prison.
At a subsequent restitution hearing held on July 22, 2011, the court awarded victim restitution to Dayco and several other individuals.
Defendant's Criminal Conduct*fn3
On October 18, 2010, Yuba City Police Officer Amoruso spoke with Jon Dayco and informed him that defendant, one of his contract representatives, was committing theft. Dayco owned and operated Bankcard POS, based in Illinois. The business distributes point of sale (POS) cash registers and charges a monthly operation fee. Dayco had hired defendant in July 2010 and she had signed on nine new contracts in approximately one month. Dayco paid defendant a commission for each new contract. Soon afterward, Dayco began receiving complaints from businesses that defendant charged them fees up front, with a guarantee they would not have to pay any monthly fees. Defendant was not authorized to waive fees or collect funds on behalf of the company.*fn4
Restitution Claim and Hearing
Dayco provided the probation officer with a list of victim businesses that had filed police reports in connection with defendant, including a calculated "funded amount" for each contract that included equipment costs (of the cash registers) and commission he paid to defendant (for signing the new contracts). He sought restitution for this "funded amount" in connection with four of the listed businesses, for a total of $17,288.23.
Citing the negative effect defendant's actions had on Dayco's business, the probation officer recommended awarding ...