People V Lopez Ca41

Key Facts

Issues

• Defendant claimed the trial court erred by reserving restitution for NCR without determining its victim status or allocation between NCR and Wells Fargo. The court held this challenge was forfeited because defendant submitted to the probation report's recommendation to reserve NCR's restitution and raised no objections during sentencing or the restitution hearing, precluding appellate review.
• The trial court awarded $201,950 in restitution to Wells Fargo, finding substantial evidence supported the amount based on the bank's documentation and statements. Defendant argued the award was unsupported and failed to deduct $220 recovered from the getaway van, but the court concluded the discrepancy was de minimis and defendant provided no evidence to rebut the bank's prima facie showing.

Holdings

• The trial court acted within its discretion in ordering Lopez to pay Wells Fargo $201,950 in victim restitution. Substantial evidence, including Wells Fargo's internal documentation and employee statements, supported the restitution amount. The court also reasonably inferred that the recovered $220 from the getaway van was accounted for in Wells Fargo's loss calculation, and Lopez failed to present any evidence to rebut the bank's prima facie showing of loss.
• Lopez forfeited his challenges regarding NCR's victim status and restitution allocation by failing to raise these issues in the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the reservation of restitution as to NCR due to procedural default.

Remedies

• The trial court sentenced Jorge Lopez to 14 years in prison, consisting of 4 years for the first-degree robbery conviction and 10 years for the firearm-use enhancement. The sentence was affirmed on appeal.
• The court awarded $1,300 in victim restitution to Grant E., one of the NCR technicians, for the loss of his personal cellphone during the robbery.
• The trial court reserved restitution for National Cash Register (NCR) due to insufficient information and later confirmed this decision without objection during the restitution hearing. The court noted that ordering restitution to Wells Fargo rendered NCR's claim moot.
• The trial court ordered Lopez to pay $201,950 in victim restitution to Wells Fargo for the cash stolen from an ATM. This amount was supported by a Wells Fargo cash sheet and confirmed during a restitution hearing, despite defense arguments about ambiguities in the documentation.

Monetary Damages

Legal Principles

• The People initially bear the burden of demonstrating the victim's economic loss. Once a prima facie showing is made, the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove the claimed amount, as outlined in People v. Gemelli and People v. Grandpierre.
• Sentencing judges have substantial discretion to consider any information, including probation reports and victim statements, when determining restitution amounts. This discretion is not bound by strict documentary requirements, as per People v. Phu and People v. Kelly.
• A victim's statement of economic loss is considered prima facie evidence, allowing courts to rely on such statements without additional proof unless the defendant rebuts them. This was applied to Wells Fargo's $201,950 restitution claim.
• The appellate standard for reviewing restitution orders is abuse of discretion. Courts presume the trial court's order is correct, and error must be affirmatively shown, as per People v. Millard and People v. Giordano.
• Courts are not required to determine the exact amount of loss for restitution, provided the method used is rational and could reasonably make the victim whole. This principle was applied to uphold the $201,950 award despite minor discrepancies, as noted in In re K.F. and People v. Carbajal.
• The standard of proof at a restitution hearing is preponderance of the evidence, as established in cases like People v. Grandpierre and People v. Millard. This standard allows courts to accept a victim's statement of economic loss as prima facie evidence without requiring detailed documentation.

Precedent Name

• In re K.F.
• People v. Selivanov
• People v. Kelly
• People v. Keichler
• People v. Phu
• People v. Millard
• People v. Martinez
• People v. Grandpierre
• People v. Gemelli
• People v. Giordano

Cited Statute

• Penal Code Section 1202.4
• Penal Code Section 211
• Penal Code Section 12022.53
• Penal Code Section 496
• Penal Code Section 29800
• Vehicle Code Section 10851

Judge Name

• Acting Presiding Judge O'Rourke
• Judge Rubin
• Judge Kelety

Passage Text

• We conclude the trial court acted within its discretion in ordering Lopez to pay Wells Fargo $201,950 in victim restitution because substantial evidence supports the order.
• Here, assuming Lopez is correct about the $220 discrepancy, the court's restitution order is still 99.9 percent precise (i.e. $220 is only about 0.11 percent of $201,950).
• In any event, Lopez introduced no affirmative evidence of his own to undermine Wells Fargo's prima facie showing.