P. v. Barretto
Filed
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALEJANDRO AMBROSIO BARRETTO, Defendant and Appellant. | G036895 (Super. Ct. No. 05HF0793) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Susanne S. Shaw, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Stephen S. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, James D. Dutton, Michael T. Murphy and Marissa Bejarno, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Alejandro Ambrosio Barretto contends insufficient evidence supports an order directing him to pay restitution to his grand theft victim, a golf course. The evidence supports the amount of the award, except for the portion reimbursing the golf course for a videotape surveillance system installed before the charged thefts. We modify the restitution order to deduct the improper portion, and affirm.
FACTS
Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of commercial burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b))[1] and one count of grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)). He had stolen golf clubs from his former employer, an Irvine golf course. He also had entered the pro shop's office to steal cash from its safe. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three years formal probation, on the condition he serve 270 days in county jail.
The court held a hearing to determine the amount of restitution defendant would owe the golf course. Defense counsel spoke first. He noted the golf course sought just over $32,000 in restitution. He argued the golf course improperly sought to recover for theft losses incurred before the dates alleged in the information. He further argued the golf course wrongly sought restitution for a videotape surveillance system installed before those dates. Defense counsel introduced the golf course's documentation for their restitution request into evidence to support his claims. He also called the golf course's general manager as a witness. The general manager testified the golf course installed the videotape surveillance system on a trial basis before the charged theft to deter â€
