People v. Casillas CA1/2 ( 2024 )

Filed 9/10/24 P. v. Casillas CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
A169929
v.
SALVADOR CASILLAS, JR. (Solano County
Super. Ct. No. FCR345030)
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Salvador Casillas appeals from a trial court order ordering
him to pay an additional $2,375 in restitution to the California Victims
Compensation Board. Casillas’s appellate counsel filed a brief asking this
court to independently review the record for arguable issues. (People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Casillas was informed of his right to file
supplemental briefing and has not done so.
Finding no errors or other issues requiring further briefing, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
As we stated in our opinion affirming the underlying judgment of
conviction (People v. Salvador Casillas, Jr. (Jan. 19, 2022, A162338) [nonpub.
opn.]): “Defendant was charged with two felony counts of stalking (Pen.
Code,1 § 646.9, subd. (b)), 18 misdemeanor counts of disobeying a domestic
1 “All [undesignated] statutory references are to the Penal Code.”
1
relations court order (§ 273.6, subd. (a)), two misdemeanor counts of making
annoying phone calls (§ 653m, subd. (b)), and one misdemeanor count of
battery (§ 243, subd. (e)(1)). The alleged victim was his former girlfriend,
G.K.
“Defendant entered a plea of no contest to one count of felony stalking,
with a maximum sentence of four years in state prison.2 The remaining
counts were dismissed with a [People v.] Harvey [(1979) 25 Cal. 3d 754]
waiver, and no promises were made as to the sentence.”
At the sentencing on February 26, 2021, probation was denied.
Defendant was sentenced to the midterm of three years in state prison. At
that time, the court reserved jurisdiction over restitution.
On March 26, 2021, Casillas filed a notice of appeal challenging his
sentence.
On July 28, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on restitution at which
Casillas (then in state prison) was present via Zoom. Casillas’s counsel
stated, “I have had an opportunity to review the release[3] documents, and
then have a phone call with Mr. Casillas, and we are prepared to submit on
2 “There were two felony counts of stalking.Count 1 alleged that
between April 7 through April 23, 2019, defendant ‘did willfully, maliciously,
and repeatedly follow and did willfully and maliciously harass G.K., and
made a credible threat with the intent that she be placed in reasonable fear
for her safety and the safety of her immediate family,’ and that defendant
was ‘subject to a temporary restraining order, injunction and other court
order prohibiting the above described behavior against G.K.’ Count 2 alleged
the same conduct, but for the earlier period between March 1, 2019 and April
6, 2019, and when there was no court order.”
3 It is not clear what is meant by “release” documents or whether this is
a typographical error. In context, the only topic of the hearing was
restitution and the reference to “release” was made in connection with
counsel’s review of documents submitted by the California Victim
Compensation Board.
2
the request for additional—well, for restitution. I did discuss with Mr.
Casillas that, at least the documentation that we received, appears to exceed
the amount that is currently requested. So I have explained to him that we
may have a future added request. It does look like the Cal. Victim
Compensation Board granted some additional payments as well as denied
others.” (Italics added.)
The court asked the prosecutor whether she was “requesting in your
motion here $2,286 to be ordered to be paid in restitution,” to which she
replied, “Yes, your honor. And I am covering for Ms. Self, so I was unaware
there was a different amount. But that’s the motion that I have in front of
me.”
The court responded, “So what I’m going to do, having reserved
jurisdiction to order restitution in Mr. Casillas’ case, is I’ll now order $2,286
in restitution, payable to the California Victim Compensation Board,
pursuant to your request.”
Casillas’s counsel noted that “some of the restitution was incurred after
the sentencing date.” The court also stated that “I remember in reviewing
those records that there was—this was spread over time, and it wouldn’t
necessarily just date back to the sentencing.”
On November 20, 2023, the prosecution filed a “Motion for Court Order
Regarding Restitution,” to “set the amount of restitution in this case to
reimburse the California Victim Compensation Board [(CalVCB)] in the
amount of $4,661.00.” The motion stated that “Since the original order of
restitution, CalVCB has continued to provide services to the victim. The
dollar amount of services provided to the victim increased by $2,375.00.
CalVCB is now making an updated claim for restitution in the total amount
of $4,661.00 for mental health and relocation benefits paid to or on behalf of
3
the victim G.M.K.” The motion attached as exhibit 1 an “Updated Restitution
Request” from CalVCB directed to the district attorney, dated November 3,
2023.4
The motion for court order regarding restitution stated, “The court
retains jurisdiction to modify [a] previously issued ‘to be determined’ order to
make a specific order of restitution when the victim losses became known.
Further, the court may update an earlier order if the amount of loss changes.
Penal Code section 1202.46 states in pertinent part: [¶] ‘. . . [w]hen the
economic losses of a victim cannot be ascertained at the time of the
sentencing pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 1202.4, the court shall retain
jurisdiction over a person subject to a restitution order for purposes of
imposing or modifying restitution until such time as the losses may be
determined. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting a
victim, the district attorney, or a court on its own motion from requesting
correction, at any time, of a sentence when the sentence is invalid due to the
omission of a restitution order or fine without a finding of compelling and
extraordinary reasons pursuant to Section 1202.4.’ ” (Bolding omitted.)
The motion for court order regarding restitution cited People v. Bufford
(2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 966, 971, for the proposition that under section
1202.4, subdivision (f), “ ‘if the court cannot determine the amount of
4 The Updated Restitution Request from the CalVCB stated in part,
“The following victim(s) has/have filed claims with the Victim Compensation
Board. Pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4 et seq. and Welfare and
Institutions Code section 730.6 et seq., the following restitution should be
requested and ordered and made payable to the Victim Compensation Board.
The amount reflected below is the total order amount and includes all
previous amounts requested.” It then listed a claimant identified as “G.M.K.”
and described the type of benefit as “Mental Health & Relocation.” As we
have noted, G.M.K. is the victim of Casillas’s felony stalking in this case.
4
restitution at the time of sentencing, there is no limitation upon when the
court must next set a restitution hearing, nor is there a limitation on the
permissible reasons that may prevent fixing the amount of restitution.’ ”
The motion for court order regarding restitution was noticed for
November 29, 2023. The court minutes show that on December 6, 2023, the
hearing was subsequently set by the court for January 29, 2024 to allow
defendant any response to the request.
Defendant filed an opposition arguing that the court did not have
jurisdiction to order or modify restitution because he had completed his state
prison sentence in February 2022 and his post release community
supervision (PRCS) period was successfully terminated in February 2023.
Defendant also argued that there was nothing in the record showing that the
economic losses of the victims could not be ascertained at the time of
sentencing or when the court ordered restitution in the amount of $2,286 on
July 28, 2021.
On January 29, 2024, the court (Honorable Jeffrey C. Kauffman) held a
hearing on the motion for restitution. The district attorney argued that the
court retained jurisdiction under sections 1202.4 and 1202.46 to modify
restitution when the victim’s economic losses could not be ascertained at the
time of sentencing, and that the court had jurisdiction in this case.
Casillas’s attorney agreed that these sections “do stand for the position
that if the victim’s losses cannot be ascertained, the Court would retain
jurisdiction. However, that was later addressed after the initial sentencing
date in this case in July of—July 29 [sic], 2021.”
The court determined that it had jurisdiction to order additional
restitution. Defense counsel asked for a hearing on the amounts at issue; the
hearing was set for February 26, 2024.
5
The further hearing on restitution was heard by Judge William
Pendergast on February 26. The court declined to revisit Judge Kaufmann’s
ruling on jurisdiction. The district attorney offered in evidence about 40
pages of documentary evidence with a statement of certification from CalVCB
supporting the request for restitution.5 The district attorney explained that
$375 of the restitution request was to reimburse CalVCB for additional
mental health payments it had made on specific dates in April and May 2021.
The district attorney noted that when the People filed their first restitution
motion, it was based on a request from CalVCB dated March 30, 2021. This
additional increment of $375 had not been included in the July 28, 2021 order
of restitution, although the amounts had already been paid to the victim.
The district attorney also explained that there was “documentation
supporting $2000 in relocation expenses” to the victim. The district attorney
was thus seeking a total of $2,375 in additional restitution. Adding that to
the amount already ordered, the total restitution owed by Casillas would be
$4,661 to be paid as reimbursement to the CalVCB.
Casillas’s counsel argued that he should not be required to reimburse
CalCVB for the $375 in additional mental health expenses to the victim
because it “should have been requested” at the time of the hearing in July
2021. As for the $2,000 in victim relocation expenses, Casillas’s counsel
argued that the “date associated with or the date as requested was July 1st of
2022,” and that the expenses should have been sought earlier. Casillas’s
5 The trial court overruled defense counsel’s objection on hearsay
grounds to the admission of this packet of records; the district attorney cited
section 1203.1, subdivision (d), which provides that documentary evidence of
the type offered “shall not be excluded as hearsay” in determining the
amount of restitution. The district attorney’s evidence, identified as People’s
Exhibit 1, is not included in the record before us.
6
counsel noted that as of February 2023, Casillas had completed serving his
period of imprisonment and PRCS. Casillas’s attorney said by waiting to
make the motion for restitution until November 2023, “the D.A. has forfeited
the right to modify the restitution.”
The trial court stated, “I don’t find there had been any evidence to
shake the Court’s confidence in the figures reported in People’s Exhibit 1 and
so I will award the 375 additional dollars paid by California Victims
Compensation Board for mental health, the additional $2000 for relocation
expenses, so it’s an additional $2375 in restitution. [¶] The prior order of
$2286 remains in full force and effect. When you combine those two, it
creates a new grand total of $4661 in restitution due and payable.”
The trial court issued an Amended Order for Victim Restitution stating
that Casillas was convicted of a crime that entitles the victim to restitution,
that evidence was presented the victim suffered losses as a result of the
defendant’s conduct, that defendant was informed of his right to a judicial
determination of the amount of restitution and on July 28, 2021, a hearing
was conducted, an order and amended abstract issued, that on November 20,
2023, the district attorney’s office filed a motion for court order requesting
additional restitution be ordered, and on February 26, 2024, a hearing was
conducted. It was ordered that Casillas pay restitution to the CalVCB in “the
original ordered amount of $2,286.00 plus an additional $2,375.00 for a total
of $4,661.00.”
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the record on appeal for any arguable issues and find
no errors or other issues requiring further briefing.
The restitution imposed appears to be authorized by law.
7
We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People
v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
The judgment is affirmed.
8
_________________________
Miller, J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
Richman, Acting P.J.
_________________________
Desautels, J.
A169929, People v. Casillas
9