Opinion
A157084
09-30-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL DAKOTA SPRADLIN, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. CTMCRCR18966821)
Michael Dakota Spradlin (defendant) appeals from a restitution order entered after he pleaded guilty to one count of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460 ) and the trial court placed him on probation for three years with various conditions. He contends the court erred in ordering him to pay $2,000 in victim restitution because there was insufficient evidence to support "[a]ny award of restitution beyond about $836." We reject his contention and affirm the judgment.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 10, 2018, a burglary was reported at a residence in Albion, California, and a deputy was dispatched. The victim, P.O., said he believed defendant, his next door neighbor, had broken into his outbuilding and taken his woodworking tools. A note had been left on the outbuilding that stated, "Sorry about that won't happen again just hated to see all these tools be ruined annomous (sic)." Defendant had previously told P.O. he wanted to learn about woodworking and the tools; at that time, defendant had given P.O. a handwritten note. Based on the handwriting and the paper used for the notes, the deputy believed defendant was the one who wrote the note that was left on P.O.'s outbuilding. The deputy went to defendant's home and, while unable to make contact with defendant, he did view another handwritten note, next to pictures of defendant, on similar paper and with similar handwriting. On December 20, 2018, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant with second degree burglary (§§ 459, 460, count 1) and buying or receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a), count 2).
On December 28, the deputy interviewed defendant after advising him of his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436). Defendant said he had tried to purchase the tools from P.O., a "famous woodworker," but P.O. had refused to sell them. Defendant took the tools from P.O.'s outbuilding because he thought they were going to go to waste. He indicated he still had all of the tools except the planer and led the deputy to a wooded area where he had stored the remaining tools. The deputy returned to P.O.'s residence with the recovered tools and confirmed the tools belonged to him. P.O. was saddened that defendant befriended him and tried to take advantage of the fact that he is elderly. P.O. said that most of his items had been returned but that he was still missing "items and wood that he could have sold himself."
P.O. later submitted the following statement regarding the value of the lost items: "Mr. Spradlin stole from me 4 expensive German (Festool) power woodworking hand tools and one small machine. Most of this was returned . . . . One item, a power hand planer for which I had paid $400.00[,] was not recovered." "Beyond this, Spradlin and probably someone else took a lot of old redwood from my outdoor rack. These pieces are totally clear, tight, vertically-grained, furniture-grade redwood. For example, one board was a 3 X 8, 15 ft plank which had been milled in the 1960s. It is only 28 BF, but at 15 ft long and going $15 per BF, I could sell it for around $450.00. [¶] This is only one board from the several he/they took. I would estimate all this at around $2500. (I have been told that he already sold all of this.)"
P.O. continued: "Spradlin was living next door to me . . . when he stole from me. . . . . The caretaker for [another resident of the home in which defendant lived] allowed me over to look for my wood, but there was only a handful of boards, and none of the expensive stuff." "The accumulated value of [the power tools] is around $1400.00, and the Disc Sanding Machine cost me $500.00. Add to this $2500.00 for the lumber and the total is: $3900.00. However, since 4 tools were returned by the deputy, at a value of $1550, the total I am out now is: $2350.00. [¶] Will you please keep me informed about how this case is progressing, and possibly let me know what more I can do about getting any of my wood back, or my planer?"
On January 7, 2019, defendant pleaded guilty to second degree burglary (§§ 459, 460) and the trial court placed him on probation for three years and ordered him to serve 360 days in county jail with day for day credit in an approved inpatient program.
At a restitution hearing, the defense stated it was willing to stipulate to a total loss figure of $836; the prosecution did not accept the offer. P.O. testified that four of five tools that were stolen were returned but that a planer that he purchased in the 1990s for approximately $400 had not been returned. He also testified that one of the missing redwood beams had a value of $400 and described it as a ". . . 15 foot. And it is kiln-dried virgin redwood, vertical grain, 3 by 8. Very rare stuff." He testified that a total of about "half a dozen" beams were missing, and that while not all of them were three inches thick, "some of it was. Some of it was two inch." He estimated that his total loss for the stolen lumber was $2,500. Later, he reiterated that while $2,500 "seems a bit high," his loss for the stolen lumber was "somewhere around that."
The trial court stated: "Well, there's no question that [P.O.] had been a woodworker for many, many years. He accumulated an inventory of wood that was rare and valuable. That it had been in this rack for a number of years and so he may have been familiar with . . . how it appeared in terms of when it was sitting in the rack and noticed a void after the burglary had occurred. [¶] But he couldn't say with any real specificity what pieces were gone, what their dimensions were, but . . . it was obvious to him that more was taken than just the one piece that he was able to describe very specifically. [¶] He noticed that the void occurred at or around the time of the burglary. It's undisputed that Mr. Spradlin admitted taking at least some of the lumber that [P.O.] says was missing. I think on those facts it's pretty clear that Mr. Spradlin is responsible for the missing lumber. [¶] I don't think it's fair to deprive [P.O.] the full value of the loss that he believes he suffered simply because he had a stack of lumber that he'd had for so long, that he didn't have inventory, but he could tell that some of it was missing and he gave an opinion as to what the value of the missing lumber was. [¶] It's undisputed that . . . he never got the $400 planer back. It's undisputed that the 3 by 8 by 15 or 20 . . . redwood timber, I think his opinion testimony that its value is about $400 is sufficient. [¶] Then there's the void of other lumber that went missing at around the time of the offense. I just think, circumstantially, it's sufficient to attribute that loss to Mr. Spradlin. [P.O.] did his best to estimate the value. It's not precise. [¶] But the court's going to find that he is entitled to restitution for his losses, based upon his opinion. In the amount of $2,000."
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the trial court erred in ordering him to pay $2,000 in victim restitution because there was insufficient evidence to support "[a]ny award of restitution beyond about $836" — the value of the planer and one redwood board. We disagree.
Section 1202.4 subdivision (a)(1) provides that the victim of a crime "who incurs an economic loss as a result of the commission of a crime shall receive restitution directly from a defendant convicted of that crime." The restitution award "shall be of a dollar amount that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant's criminal conduct." (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)(3).)
At a victim restitution hearing, a prima facie case for restitution is made by the People based in part on a victim's testimony on, or other claim or statement of, the amount of his or her economic loss. (People v. Prosser (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 682, 690-691.) "Once the victim has [i.e., the People have] made a prima facie showing of his or her loss, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the amount of the loss is other than that claimed by the victim. [Citations.]" (Id. at p. 691.) The defendant may, for example, submit evidence to prove the amount claimed exceeds the repair or replacement cost of damaged or stolen property. (People v. Gemelli (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1542-1543.)
"The standard of review of a restitution order is abuse of discretion. 'A victim's restitution right is to be broadly and liberally construed.' [Citation.] ' " 'Where there is a factual and rational basis for the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court, no abuse of discretion will be found by the reviewing court.' " ' [Citations.]" (In re Johnny M. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1132.) The court is authorized to use "any rational method of fixing the amount of restitution as long as it is reasonably calculated to make the victim whole. [Citations.]" (People v. Baker (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 463, 470.)
"In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence [to support a factual finding], the ' "power of the appellate court begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted," to support the trial court's findings.' [Citations.] Further, the standard of proof at a restitution hearing is by a preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] 'If the circumstances reasonably justify the [trial court's] findings,' the judgment may not be overturned when the circumstances might also reasonably support a contrary finding. [Citation.] We do not reweigh or reinterpret the evidence; rather, we determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the inference drawn by the trier of fact. [Citations.]" (People v. Baker, supra, 126 Cal.App.4th 463, 468-469.)
Here, the People made a prima facie showing of P.O.'s loss through his testimony that he paid $400 for the planer, that the value of one of the redwood beams was $400, that a total of about "half a dozen" beams were stolen, and that the other beams were comparable in size and/or value to the one he described. Defendant argued the People had not "met their burden beyond" "$400 for the beam, $400 for the planer that was not returned." However, the defense presented no evidence to contradict or rebut P.O.'s testimony that he had incurred additional loss. Accordingly, there was substantial evidence to support a finding that the total value of the stolen planer and lumber was $2,000, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering defendant to pay that amount in victim restitution.
Defendant argues the order must nevertheless be reversed because P.O. made some inconsistent statements and the evidence regarding the missing wood was unclear. He points out, for example, that P.O. initially reported to the deputy that defendant had taken " 'his woodworking tools' " and did not mention the missing wood until later. He avers that P.O.'s testimony was unclear because he did not know exactly how many pieces of wood had been taken. As noted, however, a reviewing court does not reweigh or reinterpret the evidence. (People v. Baker, supra, 126 Cal.App.4th 463, 468-469.) Moreover, the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony are within the sole province of the trier of fact. (People v. Hamlin (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1463.) We therefore decline to reweigh the evidence or disturb the trial court's determination as to P.O.'s credibility.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Petrou, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Siggins, P.J. /s/_________
Wick, J.
Judge of the Superior Court of Sonoma County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. --------