Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. No. BA372900 Alex Ricciardulli, Judge.
Maggie Shrout, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Linda D. Johnson and Ryan M. Smith, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
BIGELOW, P. J.
Shapour Esmaeilian appeals only the trial court’s order to pay $544.80 in victim restitution. We reverse the order granting victim restitution.
DISCUSSION
Esmaeilian pled no contest to one count of identity theft for his unauthorized use of Nancy and Chris Ricks’ credit cards. Under a plea agreement, Esmaeilian received the midterm sentence of two years and the remaining counts against him for identity theft, unlawful possession of an access card and forgery were dismissed. At a subsequent restitution hearing, the prosecutor presented the court with a letter from the Ricks stating that they did not incur any direct cost out-of-pocket because the losses from Esmaeilian’s unauthorized purchases were covered by insurance. However, the Ricks did purchase credit security services for $544.80 to ensure there has not been any other identity theft and to prevent future identity theft. The trial court found the amount reasonable and ordered Esmaeilian to pay $544.80 in victim restitution. Defense counsel objected on the ground that the restitution ordered was not authorized by state law. On appeal, the People concur.
Penal Code section 1202.4, which governs the restitution ordered in this case, requires that a victim of crime be compensated for any economic loss he or she has suffered. It does not authorize payment for costs incurred to prevent future crimes, except in circumstances involving victims of violent crimes who incurred “[e]xpenses to install or increase residential security....” (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f)(3)(J).) Because the trial court exceeded its statutory authority, we reverse the order.
DISPOSITION
Our normal disposition in this type of case would be to reverse and remand with instructions to modify the abstract of judgment in accordance with this opinion. However, the abstract of judgment, filed on September 21, 2010, was never amended to add the trial court’s October 14, 2010, order directing $544.80 to be paid for victim restitution. As a result, the abstract of judgment currently on file is in accord with this opinion. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order directing Esmaeilian to pay $544.80 in victim restitution, but do not remand for modification of the abstract of judgment. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.
We concur: FLIER, J., GRIMES, J.