People v. Haggins CA4/1

Filed 8/31/23 P. v. Haggins CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D081876
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD286869)
DAVID C. HAGGINS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
David M. Gill, Judge. Affirmed.
Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
David C. Haggins entered into a plea agreement, under which he
pleaded guilty to grand theft (Pen. Code,1 § 487, subd. (a)) and admitted two
strike priors (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). He was sentenced to eight months in this
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
case to be served consecutively to case Nos. SCE401916 and SCD288251.
The total sentence imposed was six years eight months.
After the sentencing, the prosecution filed a motion for restitution to
the victim for the value of items stolen from her home. The motion requested
restitution in the amount of $20,000. The court held an evidentiary hearing.
During the course of that hearing, Haggins agreed to a restitution order in
the requested amount.
The trial court ordered restitution as part of the judgment.
Haggins filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any
arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to
independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered
Haggins the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not
responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Appellate counsel has provided an accurate summary of the evidence
produced at the restitution hearing. We will utilize that summary for
background purposes.
A. The Testimony of the Victim.
The victim, Katie F., testified that she hired a company to perform
mold remediation on the second floor of her residence, during which various
items in the bedroom and bathroom were required to be moved. On the first
day of the work, she discovered that workers had wrapped an armoire in the
bedroom closet in plastic. She then asked Haggins, who was the primary
worker that she dealt with on the project, to take the plastic off, because she
needed to retrieve something from the armoire. When Haggins did so, Katie
2
F. retrieved a jewelry box, which she had stored in the armoire, then placed it
in a moving box inside a landing area, and covered it with a series of duvets
and comforters. A day later, Haggins told Katie F. that he had straightened
the items in the moving box, because he noticed that they were unstable.
On February 14, 2020, after the bathroom remodeling was done,
Katie F. went to put the items back, and discovered that the jewelry box was
gone. In connection with her loss, and the resulting insurance claim, Katie F.
prepared a 38-page written inventory or spreadsheet of the items, along with
their estimated value and the date they were acquired. The spreadsheet
included a total of 35 items, many of which Katie F. had appraised, while
others were valued using various internet sites, such as Google, eBay, and
Etsy. 2
Katie F. estimated the total value of the stolen items at $46,275. She
was able to obtain several of the items, which had been impounded at a pawn
shop, whose estimated value totaled $4,650, and paid $682 to another pawn
shop to repurchase a ring that had been stolen. As a result, after subtracting
the value of the recovered items Katie F. estimated her total loss at $41,625,
plus the cost of the repurchased ring. She also filed a claim with Farmers
Insurance, which paid a total of $10,284.03 on the claim.
2 A copy of the inventory or spreadsheet, along with supporting
documentation, was attached to the motion for restitution filed by the People
on behalf of Katie F. Katie F. testified that she was able to prepare the
spreadsheet because she had spent a lot of time over the years going through
the box at least once a year for over 40 years and telling her daughter stories
about the items. She was also able to identify the dates that many of the
items were acquired, because she received them from her mother or as gifts
from her parents or her husband.
3
As a result, and after deducting the insurance payment from the total
loss of $41,625 Katie F. claimed a net loss of $32,023.3 However, she elected
to claim only $20,000, because she did not want to overestimate her loss, and
because much of the value of the stolen items was nonmonetary.
B. Haggins’s Testimony.
Haggins denied being asked to remove the plastic wrapping from the
armoire, and claimed that it was done by another worker, named “Salvatore.”
He also denied being present when the jewelry box was placed inside a larger
box, and denied making the comment to Katie F. about straightening the
items in the box. Haggins admitted having a practice of pawning items in
San Diego, and presenting his own identification as the person pawning the
items. Haggins also testified that on many occasions, he merely used the
items to obtain a loan rather than pawning them, and that he made
approximately $80,000 to 100,000 per year by buying and selling gold and
diamonds.
Haggins admitted pawning a piece of green jewelry identified by
Katie F., but denied that it was stolen. Instead, he claimed that he spent
only a day or two at Katie F.’s residence, and that about a month later, he
was approached by an employee of the company that remediated Katie F.’s
residence, and who had also worked on the residence, to see what kind of deal
Haggins could get for him on that and other pieces. Haggins bought several
of the items, but according to Haggins, he did not know they were stolen.
Haggins nonetheless pleaded guilty to grand theft because it was a “global
offer” affecting three different cases in which Haggins had been charged.
Although Katie F. offered to settle the matter for $20,000, Haggins insisted
3 After making the calculations using the above amounts, the actual total
comes to $32,022.97.
4
on a restitution hearing, because he claimed that he has never seen half of
the items on there.4
Following the prosecutor’s closing argument, Haggins advised the court
that he did not wish to further contest the $20,000 claim by Katie F., and the
trial court ordered restitution in that amount.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks
the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in
its review of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967)
386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that was
considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. Whether the
court erred in granting the victim’s request for restitution.
We have reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and
Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
Competent counsel has represented Haggins on this appeal.
4 On cross-examination, Haggins conceded that he was convicted of
receiving stolen property in 2008; that in 2008, he was arrested for burglary,
receiving stolen property, and grand theft; that he pleaded guilty to
possessing a stolen vehicle; and that he pleaded guilty to burglary in 2012.
When Haggins was questioned by police on March 10, 2020, he denied
stealing any jewelry, and stated that three pieces of jewelry were given to
him by a co-worker.
5
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
BUCHANAN, J.
RUBIN, J.
6