Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Attalah

P. v. Attalah

Filed 6/8/06 P. v. Attalah CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

FADI ATTALAH,

Defendant and Appellant.

E038902

(Super.Ct.No. FSB48848)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. John M. Pacheco, Judge. Affirmed.

Wallin & Klarich and Thomas C. Steelman, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Scott C. Taylor and James D. Dutton, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Fadi Attalah (defendant) was charged with unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, being more than three years younger, under Penal Code^{^[1]} section 261.5, subdivision (c) (counts 1 & 2), sexual penetration by a foreign object with a victim under the age of 18 under section 289, subdivision (h) (count 3), and oral copulation with a person under the age of 18 under section 288a, subdivision (b)(1). Defendant pled guilty to count 1 with the understanding that the remaining charges would be dismissed, and he would be sentenced to probation and 180 days in county jail.

Defendant was sentenced to 180 days in county jail as a condition of probation. At a restitution hearing, the trial court ordered defendant to pay the airfare of the victim's father, lost wages of the victim's father, and lost wages of the victim's mother. On appeal, defendant contends that the court abused its discretion in awarding the restitution to the victim's family. We find defendant's contention to be without merit and affirm the restitution order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY^{^[2]}

At the time of the incident, defendant was 18 years old and the victim was 14 years old. On March 2, 2005, defendant called the victim and asked her to meet him in front of her house. At 11:30 p.m., the victim got into defendant's car. They began kissing. Defendant grabbed the victim and put her on his lap. The victim told defendant â€

Description	A decision regarding unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, being more than three years younger, sexual penetration by a foreign object with a victim under the age of 18 and oral copulation with a person under the age of 18.
Rating	30/5 1 2 3 4 5 1.5/5 based on 4 votes.