People v. Yanez, E013882

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtMcKINSTER; HOLLENHORST, Acting P.J., and RICHLI
Citation46 Cal.Rptr.2d 1,38 Cal.App.4th 1622
Parties, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7947, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,585 PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Benjamin Miguel YANEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. E013882,E013882
Decision Date03 August 1995

Page 1

46 Cal.Rptr.2d 1
38 Cal.App.4th 1622, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7947,
95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,585
PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Benjamin Miguel YANEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
No. E013882.
Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2, California.
Aug. 3, 1995.
Certified for Partial Publication *.
Review Denied Oct. 26, 1995.

[38 Cal.App.4th 1624] Steven Schorr, La Jolla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Keith I. Motley, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Anne Marie Urrutia, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


McKINSTER, Associate Justice.

Raising a variety of sentencing errors, a criminal defendant appeals from the judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property. Finding merit in some of his contentions, we reverse part of the judgment.


A felony complaint charges the defendant with violating Penal Code section 496 1 by receiving and holding a 1978 Chevrolet El Camino, knowing the vehicle to be stolen. The defendant pleaded guilty on the condition that he would be placed on probation.

In her report, the probation officer stated that the defendant said that he had bought the car from someone he had met at a wrecking yard. The defendant is also reported to have admitted that, because he did not get a pink slip from the seller, he switched the license plates and Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) from another El Camino he owned to the stolen vehicle. He also installed new wheels and tires and had the car repainted.

[38 Cal.App.4th 1625] The probation officer also included evidence that the "high Blue Book price" for a

Page 2

well-equipped 1978 El Camino in "top shape" was $4,100. Based on that information, the probation officer recommended that the defendant be ordered to pay restitution to the victim in an amount of $4,100.

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court, inter alia, ordered the defendant to pay probation supervision fees of $250, found that a motor vehicle was involved in the crime, and set a date for a hearing to determine the amount of restitution to be paid.

At the subsequent hearing, the victim offered evidence in support of her restitution claim totaling $8,018.11. In particular, she asked for (1) $5,677.24 to cover a long list of repairs, including a new paint job and replacement of the dash which was split when the VIN was switched, (2) $1,685.15 to replace tires, wheels, a floor mat, and jumper cables, (3) $318.59 for tools, and (4) $337.13 for spare parts which had been in the vehicle when stolen but which were missing when it was recovered.

The defendant countered that when he bought the car, there were no tools or other items of personal property in it. He also argued that, in view of the value of the car, the victim's restitution claim was too high.

As a condition of probation, the trial court ordered the defendant to pay a total of $7,302.18 in restitution to the victim.


The defendant contends that the amount of restitution to the victim is too high, that the trial court failed to consider the defendant's ability to pay when setting the amount of the restitution and the probation supervision fees, and that the trial court erred in finding that a vehicle had been used to commit the crime. (A final contention, that the trial court failed to award credits for time served, was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • In re Alexander A., D056674.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 10, 2011
    ...misinterprets section 730.6, which limits restitution to economic losses. Instead he urges this court to apply People v. Yanez (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1622, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 ( Yanez ), in which a division of this court capped restitution in criminal cases to the amount that may be awarded und......
  • People v. Green, B189051 (Cal. App. 8/24/2007)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 24, 2007
    ...the trial court corrected the orders concerning the restitution fines. Hence, the issue is now moot. (People v. Yanez (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1622, 1625; People v. Vacca (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 804, 808, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Ledesma (1997) 16 Cal.4th 90, 101, fn. VI. PENALT......
  • People v. Levey, A118999 (Cal. App. 4/10/2009), A118999
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 10, 2009
    ...a used [stolen cement] mixer with a brand new one at appellant's expense, absent some extraordinary facts"]; People v. Yanez (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1622, 1625-1627 [victim was not entitled to cost of repair that exceeded market value of stolen car].) They are inapposite. Here, Stead sought r......
  • People v. Stanley, S185961.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • July 9, 2012
    ...V. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 486, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 862( Dina V.), but its disagreement with the opposite holding in People v. Yanez (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1622, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 1( Yanez ). We granted review to resolve the conflict. We affirm the Court of Appeal's judgment in this case. [143 Cal.Rp......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT