PEOPLE v. JONES,























Filed 8/11/10











CERTIFIED
FOR PUBLICATION







IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT

(El
Dorado)

----






>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVE DOUGLAS JONES, Defendant and Appellant.

C063113 (Super. Ct. No. P07CRM1117)

APPEAL
from an order of the Superior Court
of El Dorado
County, Douglas C. Phimister, Judge. Reversed with directions.



Robert
Navarro, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.



Edmund
G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Michael P. Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Charles A.
French, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Jeffrey D. Firestone, Deputy
Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.



In this driving
under the influence case, the trial court ordered defendant Steve Douglas Jones
to pay victim restitution in the sum of $4,468.40, but in doing so failed to
make a clear statement of the calculation method it used to reach that
figure. We conclude this failure
amounted to an abuse of discretion and accordingly reverse the restitution
order and remand the case for further proceedings on the issue of victim
restitution. For guidance on remand, we
address the application of proximate cause to an award of victim restitution.

FACTUAL
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Pursuant to a plea
agreement, defendant pled no contest to driving with .08 percent or higher
blood-alcohol concentration and admitted several prior convictions and that he
had a blood-alcohol concentration in excess of .20 percent. As part of the agreement, a charge of hit and
run (leaving the scene of an accident) was dismissed with a >Harvey[1]
waiver. The court granted defendant
probation and ordered him to pay restitution to the victim of the hit and run,
Cindy Townsend, in an amount to be determined.


At a later restitution hearing, the victim (now
Shipman-Townsend) testified about the restitution she was seeking. Shipman-Townsend and her husband own a
construction business working as subcontractors. The damage defendant caused in the hit and
run accident was to a camper they use in their business. They had spent $11,000 on the camper, but it
appeared to Shipman-Townsend that defendant's insurance company was not going
to pay to repair it but instead would â€