People v. Contreras CA1/3
A162456
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 7, 2022Background:
- Defendant Ignacio Contreras pleaded no contest to assault (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) and felony vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(1)) with a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)).
- Trial court sentenced him to 2 years (assault) plus 8 months (vandalism) consecutive; gang enhancement punishment stayed but ordered Contreras to register as a gang member (§ 186.30).
- Probation reported nine vandalism victims: some declined restitution, one undecided, several unreachable; the City of South San Francisco said it would not file a claim but probation could not verify.
- At sentencing the court reserved the amount of victim restitution “to be determined,” speculating victims might fear retaliation and therefore not report losses.
- Contreras appealed, arguing the restitution reservation was improper and that Assembly Bill No. 333 eliminated gang enhancements for felony vandalism (so his enhancement and registration must be struck). He also challenged an arithmetic error in the abstract of judgment.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: reservation of restitution was proper; AB 333 did not eliminate the gang enhancement/registration here; and the abstract of judgment was corrected from $470 to $440.
Issues:
| Issue | People's Argument | Contreras' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly reserved the restitution amount | Reservation permissible where amount unknown and statute permits later determination | Reservation improper because victims had not reported damages by sentencing and damages were ascertainable | Affirmed; reservation proper because some victims were unreachable/undecided and statute allows deferral |
| Whether AB 333 eliminated gang enhancements/registration for felony vandalism | AB 333 did not alter the list of predicate felonies for § 186.22(b)(1); enhancement and registration remain available | AB 333 removed felony vandalism from gang-enhancement exposure; enhancement/registration must be struck | Rejected; ameliorative changes apply retroactively but statute still supports enhancement and registration |
| Whether the abstract of judgment incorrectly summed fines and assessments | Abstract must conform to oral pronouncement ($440 total) | Abstract incorrectly lists $470 | Court ordered correction of abstract to reflect $440 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Giordano, 42 Cal.4th 644 (victim restitution is generally mandatory absent compelling reasons)
- People v. Bufford, 146 Cal.App.4th 966 (court may reserve restitution amount when loss cannot be ascertained at sentencing)
- People v. Selivanov, 5 Cal.App.5th 726 (restitution may be ordered even if victim does not request it)
- People v. Nasalga, 12 Cal.4th 784 (ameliorative sentencing legislation applies retroactively)
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (standard of review for statutory construction is de novo)
- People v. Sanchez, 105 Cal.App.4th 1240 (registration follows a true gang-enhancement finding)
- People v. Mitchell, 26 Cal.4th 181 (oral pronouncement controls over abstract of judgment)