P. v. Rouzan
Filed 3/22/06 P. v. Rouzan CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 SEVEN
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAUL ROUZAN, Defendant and Appellant. | B182926 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA053933) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. James R. Dabney and Stephanie Sautner, Judges. Affirmed.
Melissa J. Kim, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Ana R. Duarte and Viet H. Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
________________________________
Paul Rouzan appeals from the judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to first degree burglary. He contends the court's victim restitution order was an abuse of discretion. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In January 2004, Paul Rouzan entered Roger Small's garage and removed numerous hand and power tools and various other items. Rouzan was charged by criminal complaint with first degree burglary. It was also alleged he had previously served three separate prison terms for a felony.[1]
On March 21, 2005, Rouzan pleaded no contest to first degree burglary and admitted the prior prison term enhancements. The court struck two of the prior prison term enhancements and sentenced Rouzan to three years in state prison.
On April 29, 2005, a restitution hearing was held to determine the amount to be paid to Roger Small. Rouzan had waived his appearance and was not present. Roger Small provided documentation of his missing property and the estimated replacement cost. He produced a list detailing, by name and/or merchandise number, the quantity of each â€
