Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Martinez

P. v. Martinez

Filed 2/22/07 P. v. Martinez CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

MANUEL S. MARTINEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

B190605

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BA293539)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Samuel Mayerson, Judge. (Retired judge of the L.A. Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Modified and affirmed with directions.

California Appellate Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, and Larry Pizarro, Staff Attorney, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Taylor Nguyen, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________________________

Manuel Martinez was convicted by jury of unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle (count 1) and receiving stolen property (count 2) based on evidence that on November 17, 2005, he drove a car that had been stolen the day before. The car had a punched-out ignition and the stereo system was missing. Defendant was sentenced to the middle term of two years on count 1, with sentence on count 2 stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. Restitution to the victim under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f), was ordered in the amount of $1,300.

Defendant contends that the restitution should have been limited to $1,200. The basis of the contention is that, although the victim testified he had spent â€

Description	Defendant was convicted by jury of unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle (count 1) and receiving stolen property (count 2) based on evidence that on November 17, 2005, he drove a car that had been stolen the day before. The car had a punched-out ignition and the stereo system was missing. Defendant was sentenced to the middle term of two years on count 1, with sentence on count 2 stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. Restitution to the victim under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f), was ordered in the amount of $1,300. Defendant contends that the restitution should have been limited to $1,200. The basis of the contention is that, although the victim testified he had spent "[a]bout $1,200, more or less" to fix the car and the probation officer's report indicated that the victim had reported a loss of "approximately $1,200," at the sentencing hearing the prosecutor stated that the loss was $1,300 and the court ordered restitution in that amount. The Attorney General aptly concedes that defendant's contention is meritorious and that the judgment should be modified to reflect the $1,200 amount. Court modify the judgment accordingly.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.