Filed 7 / 15 / 24 P. v. Haney CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DEJUAN ANTWON HANEY,

Defendant and Appellant. 2d Crim. No. B331162 (Super. Ct. No. KA127819

- 01 ) (Los Angeles County)

Dejuan Antwon Haney appeals from the trial court’s order

aw arding victim restitution pursuant to Penal Code section

1202.4 1 after he was convicted by j ury of petty theft. He contends
the trial court erred in ordering victim restitution to a person
who was not a victim or other person entitled to restitution under
the statute . The People agree

. We vacate the trial court’s
restitution order and remand with directions

.

1 Unless otherwise stated, a ll further statutory references are to the Penal Code.2 Facts and Procedural Background In May 202 1 , appellant visited the Pomona Auto Outlet and placed a $3

, 000 deposit on a used car . The car needed repairs before it could be test driven s o the dealership sent the

car to a third

- pa rty mechanic

. A ppellant returned to the dealership to test drive the car
but decided he did not like it and asked for a refund of his deposit. The dealership’s finance manager, Amauri Navarro, told appellant to come back the following day. A ppellant did so and
Navarro issued a $3

, 000 refund check. When Navarro left his
desk to ma k e a copy of the check, appellant opened the cash
drawer and took approximately $4

, 4 00 in c ash. After Navarro discovered the theft, he reported it to police and placed a stop payment order on the refund check. In March 2022, a ppellant was charged in a felony
information with one count of grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)) but was convicted by jury of the lesser offense of petty theft (§ 484, subd. (a))

. Victim Restitution In December 2022, t he trial court conducted a formal probation and sentencing hearing and heard argument regarding
victim restitution

. The prosecution asked that Navarro, who was present, be awarded $450 to compensate him for lost wages . The prosecution also informed the trial court that Pomona Auto
Outlet had since closed and the business owner had moved out of the country , but that Navarro was “in touch with the previous

manager ” and c ould “ provide any restitution ” to h im.3 After hearing argument and considering the evidence, the
trial court found “the total amount of victim restitution [was] $1,850 to be paid to the victims in the case.” 2
In m aking its oral ruling, the trial court explained , “ t he total amount of loss suffered by the victim by the theft itself was $4,400 . . . offset by the $3,00 0 . . . for a total of $1,400 balance owed to the victim, plus the additional funds [$450] to the vi ctim for the lost days of work by having to come to court on multiple
occasions [and] offer testimony

. ”
Discussion Appellant contends, and the People agree , the trial court erred in awarding lost wages to Navarro because he does not qualify as a “victim” within the meaning of the restitution

statute. Restitution is constitutionally required “in every case in
which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct,” regardless of the sentence or disposition imposed. ( § 1202.4, subds. (a)(1), (f); Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b)(13)(B).) Although Navarro is a person who has sustained economic
loss as a result of appellant’s crime

, he does not qualify as a
“victim” or other person entitled to restitution because he does
not meet the additional criteria required by the statute. (See § 1202.4, subd. (k) (3) .) Pomona Auto Outlet, on the other hand, does meet the statutory requirement for restitution as “[a] corporation, business

2 The minute order from the restitution hearing provides, “Defendant is to make restitution to the victim Amauri Navarro pursuant to Penal Code Section 1202.4, [subdivision] (f), in the amount of $1, 850.”4

trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality , or any other legal or commercial entity

. . . [ that ] is a direct victim of a crime.” ( § 1202.4, sub d. (k)(2) .) “A direct victim is a victim against whom a defendant has committed a
crime

. [ C itation

. ]” ( People v. Sy (2014) 223 Cal

. App.4 th 44, 62

- 63.)
B ecause it is not clear from the trial court’s ruling whether
the $1

, 400 restitution award was award ed to Pomona Auto
Outlet or Navarro

, remand for a new restitution hearing is the proper remedy to correct and clarify any confusion regarding the
trial court’s restitution order

. (See People v. Waldie (2009) 173 Cal.App.4 th 358, 368.) Disposition
The victim restitution order is vacated and the matter is
remanded for the trial court to conduct a new restitution hearing
in accordance with section 1202.4. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

.

YEGAN, J. We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

BALTODANO, J.Mike Camacho, Judge Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

The Law Collaborative and Patricia S. Snyder , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Wyatt E. Bloomfield, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Lindsay Boyd, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.