Filed 4/13/22 P. v. Ortiz CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lauren Weis Birnstein, Judge. Affirmed.

Jolene Larimore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Jason Tran and Shezad H. Thakor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________

The facts are not disputed. In September 2019, appellant Jeremy Victor Ortiz was charged with nine counts of second degree burglary of storage units and three counts of receiving stolen property. On February 19, 2020, Ortiz pled no contest to two counts of second degree burglary and the remaining counts were dismissed. Ortiz was sentenced to two years eight months, to be served in the Los Angeles County jail. At a subsequent restitution hearing, Ortiz was ordered to make payments to three victims: $145,000 to Jason Yasment, $7,628.25 to David Williams, and $21,654.00 to Kenneth Krown. This appeal is from the restitution orders. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

Ortiz contends the restitution hearing was unfair because the trial court denied his request to question the owners of the stolen property (paintings). We disagree.

A defendant has no right to cross-examine witnesses at a restitution hearing. (People v. Cain (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 81, 87; and see People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749, 754 [right to confront witnesses does not apply to sentencing hearings].) Although the trial court expressly denied Ortiz’s request to cross-examine the victims, the court offered defense counsel the opportunity to submit questions to the court that it would then ask.

The victims’ testimony and the restitution orders are based on the fair market value of the paintings. Victim Yasment’s testimony about his eight missing paintings, all originals, was supported by two estimates from art galleries (that together the paintings were valued at between $145,000 to $146,000). The fact that Yasment’s wife is the artist’s daughter and that Yasment is connected to one of the two galleries does not diminish the fair market value of the paintings. Although Ortiz was not allowed to cross-examine Yasment, Ortiz could have presented evidence to show the paintings were not as valuable as claimed. Indeed, as the trial court suggested, he could have run the artist’s name through Google and offered a printout of sale prices. The awards to Williams and Krown were based on documents these victims presented to the court. (People v. Prosser (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 682, 684 [restitution amount based solely on victim’s uncorroborated estimate upheld].)

Because trial courts are permitted to use any rational method to determine the amount of restitution (People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26), we find the court did not abuse its discretion (People v. Ortiz (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 791, 800; and see People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1121). There was nothing fundamentally unfair about the restitution hearings. (People v. Arbuckle, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 755.)

DISPOSITION

The orders are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

VOGEL, J.*

We concur:

CHANEY, J. BENDIX, Acting P. J.

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.