People v. Wright CA3

BACKGROUND

Defendant leased a Mercedes-Benz automobile, but fell behind on the payments and returned the car to the dealership. He later took the car from the dealership, had the tracking device removed, and relocated it to Mexico. At his sentencing hearing, defense counsel informed the court that the car was later brought back and returned to the dealership. Mercedes-Benz Financial submitted a restitution claim form, signed under penalty of perjury, claiming $9,800.04 in restitution. Attached to the form was a document titled “PAYMENT PLAN,” which an attached e-mail explained was “a breakdown of the deficiency balance.” The payment plan document showed “RENT DUE” of $11,752.45 with a $3,557.58 offset for a total of $8,194.87. The document listed “SALES EXP” of $235, a “DISPO FEE” of $595, and a “LATE CHG” of $50. The document showed a subtotal of $9,074.87, a tax of $725.17, and a total of $9,800.04. The document was admitted at the contested restitution hearing. Defense counsel argued the document was not authenticated and there was “nothing to indicate for what purpose that money is claimed.” Since there was “nothing about damage to the vehicle, nothing about lost equipment…