From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Nguyen

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Feb 15, 2012
H036568 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2012)

Opinion

H036568

02-15-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KIM NGOC NGUYEN, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Monterey County Super. Ct. No. SS090988)

Kim Ngoc Nguyen was charged with gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. On September 18, 2009, he entered a plea of no contest to count 1 and all other charges were dismissed. Two months later the trial court, the Honorable Adrienne Grover sentenced Nguyen to 10 years in state prison. On January 7, 2011, Judge Grover entered an order for victim restitution totaling $43,709.79, the same order she had entered July 21, 2010. There was a prior appeal to this court which we dismissed on April 5, 2011 (H035118). In that prior appeal, the restitution order was challenged and now in this new case it is challenged again. The claim in this appeal is that there is a clerical error in the amended abstract ofjudgment that needs to be corrected. We will affirm.

The trial court ordered restitution to be paid to Lillia Heredia, $1,672.50; Francisco Perez, $941; John Martinez, the victim Jeanette Martinez's father, $40,990 as set forth in the clerk's minutes; an abstract of judgment filed November 19, 2009. The trial court reserved jurisdiction as to the remaining amounts sought by John Martinez. On January 7, 2011, Judge Grover approved, signed and filed a victim restitution order in the amount of $41,096.29, the result of certain modifications after hearing. Nguyen claims that the abstract of judgment needs to be corrected to delete the lines "The court retains jurisdiction for purposes of restitution on certain issues regarding attorney fees in civil action" on the ground that all issues concerning restitution orders have been resolved.

As Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(1) provides: "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." It therefore has the authority to retain jurisdiction as distinct from the jurisdictional limits relating to restitution fines.

The record is devoid of any evidence or even mention of an attempt on the part of the victim's survivors to claim more restitution than that which was awarded. We perceive no issue for us to decide since no attempt has been made to modify. If an attempt is made to modify victim restitution it may be that equitable principles would require us to review the order again.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

RUSHING, P.J.

WE CONCUR:

PREMO, J.

BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J.


Summaries of

People v. Nguyen

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Feb 15, 2012
H036568 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2012)
Case details for

People v. Nguyen

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KIM NGOC NGUYEN, Defendant and…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Date published: Feb 15, 2012

Citations

H036568 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2012)