Filed 3/12/15 P. v. Cota CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. FRANK FLORES COTA, JR., Defendant and Appellant. D065529

(Super. Ct. No. SCS248950)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Sa n Diego County, Dwayne K. Moring, Judge. Affirmed. Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appoi ntment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Scott C. Tayl or and Stephanie H. Chow, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plain tiff and Respondent.2 I. INTRODUCTION In June 2011, the People filed a complain t charging Frank Flores Cota, Jr., with fraudulent use of a contractor's license numbe r (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7027.3) (count 1), making misrepresentations and false promises likely to indu ce a person to enter into a contract (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7161, subd. (b)) (count 2), obtaining money or property by false pretenses (Pen. Code, § 532, subd. (a)) (count 3), and grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)) (count 4). Cota pleaded guilty to fraudul ent use of a contractor's license number (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7027.3) (count 1). At sentencing, the trial c ourt suspended imposition of sentence and placed Cota on three years of pr obation. The court reserved jurisdiction on the issue of victim restitution and set a hearing on this issue. After a hearing, the trial court entered a restitution orde r directing Cota to pay $197, 824.15 in restitution to Juan and Maria Zarza (Maria) (collectively, the Zarzas), the victims of Cota's criminal conduct. On appeal, Cota claims that the trial court erred in awarding this amount of restitution. Specifically, Cota argues that th e trial court erred in awarding the Zarzas $30,551.95 to compensate them for attorney fees that they incurred related to Cota's criminal conduct. Cota contends that the Zarzas provided insufficient documentation to demonstrate that they in fact incurred attorney fees in th is amount. We conclude that3 Cota has failed to present an adequate record to review this clai m, and we therefore affirm.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDUR AL BACKGROUND Cota willfully and unlawfully used a cont ractor's license number that did not correspond to him with the intent to defraud. 1 At a restitution hearing, Maria testifie d that she and her husband signed an agreement with Cota to remodel their hous e. The Zarzas gave Cota a total of $187,272.20 toward the project. Cota perfor med little of the work n ecessary to complete the remodel. The Zarzas also incurred $30,551.95 in attorn ey fees pursuing a lawsuit against Cota related to his cr iminal conduct. The prosecut or requested that the court enter a restitution order in fa vor of the Zarzas for $217,8 24.15, the sum of these two

amounts. The court awarded the Zarzas $197,824.15 in restitution. The court explained that it was awarding the Zarzas the amount that they were requesting amount, less $20,000, in light of work that Cota performed on the project.

1 There was no trial in this matter, and thus we state the facts that formed the basis of Cota's guilty plea.4 III. DISCUSSION Cota forfeited his contention that the trial court erred in awarding $30,551.95 in its restitution order to compensate the victim s for attorney fees that they incurred related to Cota's criminal conduct Cota claims that the trial court erred in awarding $30,551.95 in its restitution order to compensate the Zarzas for attorney fees incurred to pros ecute a civil action against him related to his criminal conduct. Cota contends that the "record does not support the trial court's conclusion as to the amount owed the victims in restitution fo r attorneys fees."
A. Governing law In criminal appeals, "[e]xhibits admitte d in evidence, refused, or lodged are deemed part of the record , but may be transmitted to the re viewing court only as provided in rule 8.224." (Cal. Rule s of Court, rule 8.320(e).) 2 Rule 8.224 requires that a request for transmittal of an exhibit be made "[w]ithin 10 days after the last respondent's brief is filed or could be filed under rule 8.220 . . . ." An appellant has a responsib ility to put before this cour t every part of the record necessary to review claims asse rted on appeal. (See, e.g., People v. Whalen (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1, 85 ["it is appella nt's burden to present a record adequate for review and to affirmatively demonstrate error"].)

2 All subsequent rule references are to the California Rules of Court.5 B. Application At the restitution hearing, the following colloquy occurred: "[The prosecutor]: And showing y ou what has been marked a 32- page document . . . that has been marked as court's [exhibit] 8 for identification. "[¶] . . . . [¶] "Are those documents concerning the amount of money that you paid for the legal services a nd the lawsuit against Mr. Cota? "[Maria]: Yes. "[The prosecutor]: And specifically referring you to the last page numbered 32, in the bottom right-hand corner of court's [exhibit] 8. This shows, these documents show that you paid the amount of $30,551.95 to your lawyer, correct? "[Maria]: Yes, that is correct. "[The prosecutor]: And is that the total sum of money that you paid your lawyer for this lawsuit? "[Maria]: Yes." Exhibit 8 was received in evidence. Despite citing to this portion of Maria' s testimony, and raisi ng the contention that the record does not contain evid ence supporting the attorney fees component of the trial court's restitution order, 3 Cota failed to mention exhibit 8 in his briefing in this court and has failed to request that the exhibit be transmitte d to this court, as is required. (See rules

3 Cota contends "there was not s ubmitted to any party or the court any documentation supporting her claim."6 8.320 & 8.224.) Without exhibit 8, the record is plainly inadequate to review Cota's appeal. 4 Accordingly, we conclude that Cota ha s forfeited his contention that the record does not support the trial court's conclusion as to the amount owed the Zarzas in restitution for attorneys fees. 5
IV. DISPOSITION The restitution order is affirmed.

AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

McINTYRE, J.

4 Appellate counsel's failure to cite exhibit 8 in his brie f and his failure to request the transmittal of the exhibit 8 to this court is, frankly, in excusable, and renders this appeal wholly without merit. 5 Even assuming that Cota had not fo rfeited this claim, Maria's unrebutted testimony as to the amount of money expend ed on legal services related to Cota's criminal conduct clearly provi ded an adequate evidentiary basis for the trial court's restitution order. ( People v. Taylor (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 757, 761 ["Once the victim makes a prima facie showing of economic losse s incurred as a result of the defendant's criminal acts, the burden shifts to the defend ant to disprove the amount of losses claimed by the victim.")