Opinion
A132093
02-03-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SYDNEY MURPHY GRAVES, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule
(Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR572731)
Appellant Sydney Murphy Graves pled no contest to grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)) and was sentenced to the midterm of two years in state prison. Appellant was ordered to pay restitution to the victim in the amount of $56,000 pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4. The sole contention on appeal is that the restitution amount should be reduced "from $56,000 to $55,500." The claim has been forfeited and, in any event, lacks merit.
In her reply brief, appellant claims the amount should be reduced to "$55,000."
The evidence adduced at the preliminary hearing established that the victim, Catherine Duerner, was a 60-year-old disabled former drug addict who was also under psychiatric care. In 2007, she was assigned a new counselor at the Drug and Abuse Alternative Center (Center) in Santa Rosa. The new counselor at the Center was appellant, also a former drug addict. During counseling sessions, Duerner revealed that she inherited $100,000, $50,000 of which she gave to her son. She testified that she gave appellant "$6,000 first and then I gave her the $50,000 cashier's check later." Appellant drove the victim to the victim's bank to facilitate the transfer. The victim testified that the $56,000 was intended as a loan and never intended as a gift.
Approximately six months after the transaction, Duerner realized that she had never been repaid any of the money. Her requests of appellant to repay the money were refused. She reported the matter to the Center and to police. When interviewed by police, appellant claimed that the initial $6,000 was spent on business cards to start a counseling business, a business in which Duerner had agreed to make an investment. There was no record produced of any payments made for business cards or any other business expenses. With respect to the $50,000, appellant claimed that this amount represented a "donation" by the victim to benefit others in need of counseling. Appellant admitted that "the money was all gone." Bank records of appellant obtained by the police supported that conclusion, as well as the conclusion that the victim's money was spent by appellant for her own personal use.
Appellant contends that the $56,000 victim restitution ordered by the trial court should be reduced to $55,500, and then, in her reply brief, that it be reduced to $55,000 even. In either case, the contention lacks merit.
Appellant never challenged in the trial court the amount of restitution ordered and never claimed, as she does now, that she made some partial payment of restitution to the victim in some minor amount. Since she "neither raised an objection to the amount of the order nor requested a hearing to determine it [citation]," the claim is waived and forfeited. (People v. Brasure (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1037, 1075.) In any event, the claim is wholly without merit. The undisputed evidence established that appellant took Duerner's $56,000 under false pretenses, deposited all of that money into her own bank account, and never repaid it or started any business as promised. As her bank records demonstrate, appellant spent the money on her own personal needs and wants, like jewelry and clothing. The victim restitution ordered by the trial court was proper and correct.
Judgment affirmed.
______________
Reardon, Acting P.J.
We concur:
__________
Sepulveda, J.
_________
Rivera, J.