Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. CRF06618
SIMS, Acting P.J.Defendant Raymond Charles Hand pled no contest to two counts of indecent exposure (Pen. Code, § 314, subd. 1; undesignated section references are to the Penal Code) and admitted two prior felony convictions (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). As a result of his plea, defendant was sentenced to five years and eight months in state prison and ordered to pay victim restitution totaling $256.52 pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (f). Defendant appeals his sentence and the order for restitution. We shall vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for further proceedings.
The complaint and abstract of judgment erroneously refer to this as Penal Code section 314.1.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The facts of the underlying offense are undisputed and are taken from the probation report.
On September 9, 2006, a man, later identified as defendant, walked into a clothing store and took “clothing items” into a dressing room at the back of the store. He then came out of the dressing room and stood in the middle of the store naked before he redressed and left the store.
A few hours later, defendant walked into a hair salon and asked to have his hair colored. Julie M., a stylist at the salon, began preparing defendant’s hair to be colored when defendant stood up, took off the dress he was wearing and began to “dance” around the salon in a leopard print “thong” while “pinching his nipples.” Julie M. told defendant to sit back down so she could wash the color out of his hair. Defendant complied, then began to masturbate.
The police soon responded to the salon and arrested defendant. He was subsequently charged with two counts of indecent exposure. After pleading no contest to all charges, defendant was sentenced to five years and eight months in state prison and ordered to pay victim restitution. Defendant appeals his sentence and the order for restitution.
DISCUSSION
A. CRC Commitment
Defendant claims the trial court abused its discretion by failing to institute commitment proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051. The People argue defendant forfeited his claim by failing to request a California Rehabilitation Center (CRC) commitment at the trial court, and alternatively, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
As an initial matter, we conclude defendant has not forfeited his right to raise this issue on appeal. Prior to sentencing, defendant submitted a letter to the court that included the following: “I’m asking the mercy of this Court to assist my treatment . . . . [¶] . . . [¶] Please use your contacts to get me in treatment. . . . [¶] . . . [¶] Perhaps at best CRC may be an option if I agree to plead to the full charge sheet and they will take me.” The court confirmed on the record that it read the letter, and defendant’s counsel argued that defendant was addicted to drugs and should receive rehabilitation, not a prison sentence.
We conclude this was a sufficient request for a CRC, Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051 commitment. The court was therefore required to consider defendant’s request and, if it was going to deny the request, state its reasons on the record. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 3051; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.406(b)(9).) The court nevertheless sentenced defendant to state prison, saying nothing of defendant’s request to be committed.
The record, therefore, is absolutely silent with respect to the defendant’s request for a CRC commitment. We have no way of determining on this record whether the trial court abused its discretion. We must remand the matter so the trial court may consider defendant’s request. (People v. Jeffrey (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 192, 196-197 [remand required when Court of Appeal cannot determine from the record whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to initiate commitment proceedings].)
B. Restitution
For the benefit of the trial court we will also address defendant’s claim that the order for victim restitution is an unauthorized sentence because the loss claimed by the victim was not actually caused by his indecent exposure. Section 1202.4, subdivision (f), requires defendants to pay victim restitution “in every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct,” not solely as a result of the charge for which defendant was later convicted.
Here, defendant damaged the salon’s bathroom by “smearing red hair color on the walls and damaging the toilet seat cover.” Julie M. had to spend $156.52 in order to repair that damage. She also lost the $100 defendant did not pay her for the work she did to his hair. These losses, like lost employee time or mental health counseling, are directly attributable to defendant’s conduct and must be reimbursed by defendant. (Cf. In re Johnny M. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1128 [employee time lost as a result of defendant’s conduct must be reimbursed under victim restitution order]; § 1202.4, subd. (f)(3)(c) [mental health counseling expenses must be reimbursed].) We find no error.
DISPOSITION
Defendant’s convictions are affirmed. Defendant’s sentence is vacated. The matter is remanded and the trial court is directed to consider defendant’s request to institute Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051 commitment proceedings and either institute such proceedings or state on the record why it is denying defendant’s request.
We concur: HULL, J., ROBIE, J.