Opinion
E052892 Super.Ct.No. FVI015742
01-04-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KATRINA MARIE MULHOLLAND 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Eric M. Nakata, Judge. Reversed.
Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton and Marissa Bejarano, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2006, defendant and appellant Katrina Marie Mulholland pled no contest to voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)) and kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)). She also admitted that a co-participant was armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (d)). Pursuant to her plea agreement, she was sentenced to a total prison sentence of 12 years consisting of the upper term of 11 years for the manslaughter, a concurrent upper term of eight years for the kidnapping, and a consecutive low term of one year for the firearm enhancement. She was also ordered to "cooperate in the payment plan of $7,500 made payable to the Victim Compensation Board by the Department of Corrections." On December 9, 2010, the trial court denied defendant's motion to modify the restitution order to address the contributions or obligations of her codefendants by either reducing the order to $2,500, or making the order joint and several. The trial court denied the motion on the grounds that it no longer had jurisdiction. Defendant had waived her right to be present in court.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Defendant contends the denial should be reversed and the restitution order should be modified as she requested. The People agree the trial court had jurisdiction and request the matter be remanded so that the trial court may hear the merits of defendant's motion. The trial court had jurisdiction to entertain defendant's motion to modify her restitution order. (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)(1) ["The court may modify the amount, on its own motion or on the motion of the district attorney, the victim or victims, or the defendant"].) Accordingly, we reverse the denial of the motion and direct the trial court to evaluate the merits.
DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant's motion to modify her restitution order is reversed. The superior court is directed to decide defendant's motion on its merits. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
KING
J.
CODRINGTON
J.