People v. Grandpierre, B307916

Defendant Obadiah Grandpierre pleaded no contest to two counts of identity theft and one count of access-card forgery after police found cash, multiple debit cards, and card readers linked to identity fraud.
Victim Shawn Vessels testified at restitution that he owns 30% of Electrical Advantage Engineering ("Engineering") and sought restitution both personally and for the company.
Vessels claimed 12 business hours lost to resolving the identity theft, which he said would have been billable at $195/hour to Engineering (total $2,340), and separately claimed one sick day (7 hours at $60/hour, $420) as a personal loss.
The trial court orally awarded $2,340 to Engineering and $420 to Vessels, but the minute order mistakenly listed $2,760 to Engineering and included an erroneous sentence that counsel and defendant stipulated to the amount.
Grandpierre appealed only the 12-hour restitution award to Engineering, arguing the company suffered no economic loss because Vessels later worked those 12 hours outside regular business hours.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Engineering may recover $2,340 for 12 lost billable hours when the owner later worked those hours off-hours	Engineering (People) — company suffered an economic loss; Vessels’s testimony is prima facie proof; hours could have been billed to others	Grandpierre — owner’s later work mitigated loss; therefore loss to company = $0	Court affirmed $2,340: victim's mitigation does not eliminate restitution; defendant bore burden to disprove claimed losses and failed to do so
Whether the trial court must correct clerical errors in the minute order (incorrect dollar amount and statement of stipulation)	People — oral pronouncement controls; minute order should be amended to $2,340 and remove the stipulation sentence	Grandpierre — appealed restitution (also challenged amount indirectly); no persuasive objection to correcting clerical errors	Court ordered the minute order amended to reflect $2,340 to Engineering and $420 to Vessels and to delete the stipulation sentence; remainder affirmed

People v. Stanley, 54 Cal.4th 734 (2012) (courts should liberally construe victims’ right to restitution)
In re Alexander A., 192 Cal.App.4th 847 (2011) (broad interpretation of "economic loss")
People v. Gemelli, 161 Cal.App.4th 1539 (2008) (preponderance standard; victim’s statement is prima facie evidence of loss)
People v. Giordano, 42 Cal.4th 644 (2007) (restitution orders reviewed for abuse of discretion; broader discretion where restitution is probation condition)
People v. Dalvito, 56 Cal.App.4th 557 (1997) (victim’s mitigation or bankruptcy discharge does not necessarily eliminate restitution entitlement)
People v. Baker, 126 Cal.App.4th 463 (2005) (victim entitled to full amount of loss despite partial recoupment from other sources)
People v. Birkett, 21 Cal.4th 226 (1999) (immediate victim entitled to full amount of loss regardless of insurance recovery)
People v. Mesa, 14 Cal.3d 466 (1975) (oral pronouncement controls over clerical errors in minute order)