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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

awarding victim restitution pursuant to Penal Code section 

1202.41 after he was convicted by jury 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, all further statutory references 

are to the Penal Code. 
2

Facts and Procedural Background

In May 2021, 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 so the dealership sent the 

car to a third-party mechanic. 

Appellant 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. Appellant did so and 

Navarro issued a $3,000 refund check. When Navarro left his 

desk to make a copy of the check, appellant opened the cash 

drawer and took approximately $4,400 in cash. After Navarro 

discovered the theft, he reported it to police and placed a stop 

payment order on the refund check. 

In March 2022, appellant 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, the 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 could “provide any restitution” to him. 
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 making its oral ruling, the trial court explained, “the 

total amount of loss suffered by the victim by the theft itself was 

$4,400 . . . offset by the $3,000 . . . for a total of $1,400 balance 

owed to the victim, plus the additional funds [$450] to the victim 

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, subd. (k)(2).) “A direct 

victim is a victim against whom a defendant has committed a 

crime. [Citation.]” (People v. Sy (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 44, 62-

63.) 

Because it is not clear from the trial court’s ruling whether 

the $1,400 restitution award was awarded 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.4th 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.