Opinion
D076039
06-18-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SEBASTIAN A. HERRERA, Defendant and Appellant.
Heather L. Beugen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson, and Michael D. Butera, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. SCN394403) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Pamela M. Parker, Judge. Affirmed. Heather L. Beugen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson, and Michael D. Butera, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Sebastian Herrera pleaded guilty to one count of willful and intentional infliction of corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)). The remaining charges were dismissed. The court granted Herrera probation on various terms and conditions. Thereafter, the court held a contested restitution hearing. The court heard the testimony of the victim and considered the probation report and written statement of loss. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court awarded restitution to the victim in the amount of $3,696.88 for medical expenses, property damage and lost wages. $779.94 of that amount was for the replacement of a cell phone damaged during Herrera's rampage in the victim's home.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. --------
Herrera appeals, challenging only the restitution for the damaged cell phone. He contends there is insufficient evidence to show that the loss was due to his actions during the offense. He argues the court abused its discretion in making the order because the evidence was insufficient. We disagree and will affirm the total judgment.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The summary of the facts contained in the respondent's brief provides an accurate summary of the evidence regarding the crime and attendant loss. We will incorporate it here for convenience.
On the afternoon of December 16, 2018, San Diego sheriff's deputies responded to a domestic violence call and encountered Herrera arguing with victim Jeanine W., who had blood covering her face. Jeanine detailed Herrera's "horrifying attack," explaining that Herrera had repeatedly punched her in the face and damaged her personal property by breaking furniture and intentionally smearing blue paint inside her residence. The investigating deputies discovered the interior of the home in a state of disarray, with couches and chairs flipped over, dirt on the floor from a dislodged houseplant, and paint "splattered all over."
The victim received medical treatment for the injuries Herrera inflicted upon her, which included a broken arm, multiple abrasions and bruising on her face and neck, a black eye, and a bloody cut on her lip. Her wounds required a month to heal, and the attack caused lasting emotional trauma to her and her family.
Herrera admitted to unlawfully inflicting a corporal injury on Jeanine, which resulted in a traumatic condition.
DISCUSSION
A. Legal Principles
Trial courts are required to order restitution to victims of crime for their economic losses. (Pen. Code, § 1203.1; Cal. Const. art, I, § 28, subd. (b).) Courts may require restitution to the victims as a condition of probation where appropriate. (People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1121.) The standard for proving the victim's entitlement and the proper amount of restitution is preponderance of the evidence. (People v. Gemelli (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1542.) We review the evidence to support a restitution order under the substantial evidence standard. We do not reweigh the evidence or make credibility decisions. We draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the trial court's decision. Our task is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable judge could find that restitution is warranted. (People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26.)
We review the trial court's decision to award restitution under the abuse of discretion standard of review. (People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 663.). The burden is on the defendant to show the decision is not rational, is arbitrary, or that no reasonable person would reach the same conclusion.
B. Analysis
The victim testified her phone was not damaged or cracked prior to the incident involving this conviction. She testified the phone was in good working order and that it was damaged as part of the destruction of property done by Herrera in committing the offense. There was no evidence offered to show the phone was previously damaged or that it was not damaged during the defendant's destruction of the victim's property. The victim testified the $779.94 amount was based on discussions with Verizon, the service provider for her phone. There is no contrary evidence in the record.
It is obvious the trial court believed the victim as to loss and amount. It is settled law in this state that the testimony, if believed, is sufficient to establish a fact. (People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1038-1039.)
The trial court had sworn testimony the phone was not damaged before Herrera damaged her residence and injured her. The phone was damaged by the end of the destruction of property, and the service provider said it will cost the victim $779.94 to replace it. Plainly, there is sufficient evidence to support the award, and the court was well within its discretionary authority to make the award it did in this case. There was no error.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J. O'ROURKE, J.