People v. Curtis CA2/5

Opinion

Filed 9/17/26 P. v. Curtis CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B348135

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 24DWCF00944) v.

JAVEON CURTIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Following a negotiated plea, Javeon Curtis (defendant) was convicted of driving or taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a). The trial court suspended execution of a three-year state prison sentence and placed defendant on probation. After a separate restitution hearing, the court ordered defendant to pay the victim, Andre McCoy, $2,650. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the restitution order. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On June 23, 2026, we sent defendant a letter notifying him of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any appellate argument he wanted this court to consider. That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no brief or letter. We have reviewed the entire record and, finding no arguable issues, affirm the order. Defendant was stopped by the police while driving a motorcycle that was reported stolen. The motorcycle belonged to McCoy. A restitution hearing began on July 21, 2025, and was continued to August 8, 2025, whereupon it concluded. McCoy testified about the motorcycle’s value (between $2,500 and $3,000 based on an internet search) as well as the damage he observed after it was recovered and impounded. He also testified that, due to the impounded/damaged motorcycle, he lacked transportation and consequently lost income. McCoy indicated the lock and chain he used to secure the motorcycle had been broken. The court admitted photographs and video of the motorcycle and related valuation evidence. On August 8, 2025, the People advised the court that the motorcycle was no longer at the impound lot and was likely sold to cover storage fees. The court admitted additional valuation evidence and ordered defendant to pay McCoy $2,500 for the motorcycle, $100 for lost wages, and $50 for the lock and chain, for a total of $2,650. A trial court must order a defendant to pay restitution for economic losses suffered by a victim as a result of the defendant’s criminal conduct. (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f).) The 2 prosecution bears the burden of proving the amount of loss by a preponderance of the evidence, and the restitution order is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (People v. Gemelli (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1542–1543 (Gemelli).) We will not disturb the order if it is supported by a rational method of calculation and substantial evidence. (People v. Prosser (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 682, 689–690.) The record supports the restitution award. McCoy’s testimony concerning the motorcycle’s value and the losses resulting from its theft, together with the photographs, video, and valuation evidence, provided a sufficient basis for the court’s determination. A victim’s statement concerning the value of stolen property may constitute prima facie evidence of loss. (Prosser, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 690; People v. Pittman (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1252, 1258.) Once the prosecutor made a prima facie showing of economic loss resulting from defendant’s criminal conduct, the burden shifted to defendant to disprove the amount claimed (Gemelli, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at p. 1543); defendant did not provide contradictory evidence. The court acted within its discretion in using the motorcycle’s fair market value as the measure of the property loss and in awarding restitution for the lost wages and damaged lock and chain. (People v. Portillo (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 577, 583 [marketplace prices may constitute circumstantial evidence of fair market value].) McCoy testified regarding each category of loss, and the court reasonably relied on that testimony and the other admitted evidence. We have independently examined the entire record on appeal and are satisfied that defendant’s appellate counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable 3 issues exist. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) Defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our independent review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the order entered against him in this case. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123– 124.) DISPOSITION The restitution order is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

KUMAR, J.* We concur:

BAKER, Acting P. J.

MOOR, J.

* Retired Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.