Collins

People v. Collins

Good Law
111 Cal. App. 4th 726·3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 889
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 26, 2003B160373, B166101California2,718 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rubin, J.

Defendant and appellant Charles Edward Collins appeals from the direct victim restitution order entered following his plea of no contest to the charge of receiving stolen property. He contends the trial court abused its discretion in ordering direct victim restitution where it was not part of the plea agreement and he was not advised that it would be a consequence of his plea. In a related petition for writ of habeas corpus, he contends his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the direct victim restitution order. After review, we affirm the judgment and deny habeas relief.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 1, 2001, Sintok Singh purchased a Chevy Suburban from appellant. Several days later, it was stolen from a shopping center parking lot. When the police later recovered the Suburban, it was missing its front bucket seats, in-dash stereo system and speaker box. The police subsequently located these items in a 1996 GMC Yukon owned by appellant. Appellant was arrested, and the stolen items were booked into evidence.

Appellant was charged by information filed on December 24, 2001, with grand theft auto (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (d)) and receiving…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.