Littlefield

People v. Littlefield

Good Law
235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 195·24 Cal. App. 5th 1086
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 28, 2018B280646California2,357 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Bendix, J.

*1087 Dylan M. Littlefield moved under the doctrine of laches to vacate a victim restitution order approximately 16 years after that order was entered and after Littlefield served his sentence for forgery. The trial court found it did not have jurisdiction to entertain Littlefield's motion. We agree and dismiss his appeal.

*1088 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Littlefield was charged with four counts of forgery. 1 ( Pen. Code, 2 § 470, subd. (d).) He pled guilty to one count, and the remaining three counts were dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement. On January 5, 2000, the trial court sentenced Littlefield in accordance with the negotiated plea to the low term of 16 months. The trial court ordered Littlefield to pay victim restitution in the following amounts: $2,154 to Portobello, $1,350 to Wolfe Properties, and $3,000 to Group 3 Aviation. The trial court stayed a $200 restitution fine contingent upon Littlefield's paying the victim restitution.

On December 15, 2016, then no longer in custody, Littlefield moved then in propria persona to vacate the victim restitution order in his forgery case under the doctrine of laches. Littlefield asserted that on or about July 20, 2016,…

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.