P. v. Nelson




Filed 4/21/11 P. v. Nelson CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JON MICHAEL NELSON, Defendant and Appellant.

E051182 (Super.Ct.No. RIF088550) OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Richard Todd Fields, Judge. Affirmed.
Suzanne C. Skolnick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Jon Michael Nelson appeals from the trial court’s finding that he violated the term of his 2000 probation that required him to pay victim restitution in the amount of $2908.23 “through the Court as directed by Financial Svcs.” As discussed below, we affirm the trial court’s finding.
Facts and Procedure
Sometime in the year 2000, a jury convicted defendant of two counts of insurance fraud (Pen. Code, § 550, subd. (b)(1). On July 6, 2000, the trial court placed defendant on probation for 36 months on the condition that, among other things, he serve 120 days of weekend custody and seek and maintain employment or attend school or vocational training full time. After a restitution dispute hearing held on August 4, 2000, the court added the probation condition that defendant “Pay Restitution (Victim) in amount of $2908.23, through the Court as directed by Financial Svcs” to State Farm Insurance Companies.
On April 18, 2005, the People alleged defendant had failed to pay victim restitution, which by then had increased to $5,354.05. When defendant failed to appear on May 19, 2005, the trial court issued a bench warrant and revoked probation. Defendant was arrested on or about January 17, 2006. On January 18, 2006, the trial court continued defendant’s probation on the additional condition that he “Report to and cooperate with Enhanced Collections Div. immediately or within two business days of release from custody” and return to court on February 8, 2006. On February 8, defendant failed to appear and the trial court again issued a bench warrant and revoked probation. Defendant again failed to appear for his arraignment on February 23, 2006.
Fast forward to November 10, 2009. Defendant was present, in custody, for his arraignment on this same probation violation. A bail review hearing was set for November 30, 2009. As of November 19, 2009, defendant was out of custody on a $10,000 bond. At the bail review hearing, the bond was continued at $10,000.
The probation violation hearing eventually took place on June 10, 2010. Defendant’s daughter testified that her father had started the family “fencing and hydromaster” business when she was a child, but that he no longer had any ownership interest in it since she and her brother had taken it over. They made “pretty good money” at the business. She also testified that she was 13 years old in the year 2000, when defendant began his probation. Defendant’s daughter posted his $10,000 bond in 2009.
Defendant testified that he had no income whatsoever, but that his medical expenses were paid through the Department of Veterans Affairs. Defendant shared a rented home paid for by his son and daughter, and that they paid all of his expenses “through the company.” Defendant started the family business in 1987, but health concerns caused him to turn the family business over to his son “about ‘90, ‘98, ‘99, something around there.” He then testified that his son had paid for his housing expenses since his son graduated from high school in “‘02, or ‘01, something like that.” In 2000 and 2001, defendant paid for his own housing and other expenses by selling off the equipment from the family business. Defendant clarified that he had given the business to his son and other children in 1998, but that he had helped his son sell off the equipment in 2000 and 2001. This money went into his son’s name and his son paid his expenses and gave him a debit card to use.
Defendant testified that he went to court financial services when first directed to by the court and told them he was not working. They said they would get back to him, but, over the next ten years, never did. Defendant denied ever receiving letters from financial services about the victim restitution.^[1]
Defendant also testified that he had recently filed for personal bankruptcy. Part of the money owed was for equipment he purchased for the family business in about 2001, a new vehicle he purchased in 2004, and a new vehicle he purchased in 2007. He testified that he had purchased these items using his credit but that his children or the family business had made the payments. Defendant had not had any income at all since 2000 and had not made a single payment toward his court ordered fees and restitution.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that defendant had violated his probation, both because he had failed to pay anything toward the restitution while using his credit to purchase machinery and two vehicles, and because he had failed to report to financial services in 2006 as specifically ordered by the court as a condition of probation. The trial court sentenced defendant to 20 days for the violation, with credit for 20 days served. Defendant also received a 60-day sentence, suspended on the condition that he report to financial services that day and report back to court on June 23, 2010. This appeal followed.
Discussion
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
Disposition
The court’s order finding defendant in violation of his probation is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.J.


We concur:

McKINSTER
J.

KING
J.

---