People v. Davillier CA2/7

INTRODUCTION

After Kimberly Davillier pleaded no contest to burglary, the trial court held a restitution hearing, at the conclusion of which the court ordered Davillier to pay the victim, Downey Nissan, $21,352.77 plus interest. Davillier contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering restitution because Downey Nissan’s insurer, not Downey Nissan, made the restitution request, and because there was an insufficient factual basis for the amount of restitution the court ordered. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In January 2014 Davillier pleaded no contest to one count of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)1 after the People presented evidence at a preliminary hearing that she made false statements on a credit application to finance the purchase of a car from the Downey Nissan dealership, took possession of the car with a $750 down payment, and made no further payments. As part of her plea agreement, Davillier agreed to pay restitution. The trial court sentenced Davillier to three years probation, and scheduled a restitution hearing. On September 14, 2015 the trial court conducted the restitution hearing. Citing a letter from Downey Nissan’s insurer requesting…