Restitution - Revision history

Sysop at 14:41, 5 May 2024

2024-05-05T14:41:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:41, 5 May 2024
Line 49:		Line 49:
	Penal Code section 1202.4(f)(1)		Penal Code section 1202.4(f)(1)

	Penal Code section 1202.46		Penal Code section 1202.4

	People v. Moreno (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 1		People v. Moreno (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 1

	People v. Bufford (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 966		People v. Bufford (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 966

			==Restitution Hearing==

			Arbuckle doesn't apply to restitution hearings. The restitution hearing does not have to be heard by the sentencing judge. (''People v. Marquez'' (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 704.)

Sysop at 19:00, 16 November 2023

2023-11-16T19:00:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:00, 16 November 2023
Line 7:		Line 7:

	People v Valenti (2016) 243		People v Valenti (2016) 243

			People v. Rivera (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1153

			People v. Scroggins (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 502

Sysop at 19:04, 10 March 2021

2021-03-10T19:04:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:04, 10 March 2021
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Non-economic damages. (''People v. Lehman'' (May 25, 2016, No. A144800) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, available at [http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A144800.PDF].)		Non-economic damages. (''People v. Lehman'' (May 25, 2016, No. A144800) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, available at [http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A144800.PDF].)


			People v Giordano (2007) 42. C4th 644, 652

			People v Valenti (2016) 243

Sysop at 17:08, 28 May 2017

2017-05-28T17:08:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:08, 28 May 2017
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Non-economic damages. (''People v. Lehman'' (May 25, 2016, No. A144800) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, available at [http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A144800.PDF].)		Non-economic damages. (''People v. Lehman'' (May 25, 2016, No. A144800) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, available at [http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A144800.PDF].)


			==Restitution as part of sentence or restitution as condition of probation==

			People v. Martinez (May 25, 2017, S219970) ___ Cal.5th ___

			''People v. Carbajal'' (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114


	==Amount of restitution==		==Amount of restitution==

Sysop at 23:28, 20 May 2017

2017-05-20T23:28:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:28, 20 May 2017
Line 9:		Line 9:

	Even though an injured party is entitled to full restitution, that party cannot capriciously set an arbitrary amount for restitution. “The purpose of restitution is to make a victim whole, not to give a windfall.” (People v. Thygesen (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 988, 995.) Suffering from an accident should not be winning the lottery. Thus, the restitution statute requires a fair, accurate, and detailed factual basis of the economic losses sustained by the injured party. “[T]he restitution order shall be prepared by the sentencing court, shall identify each victim and each loss to which it pertains, and it shall be of a dollar amount that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct . . . .” (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f)(3), emphasis added.) “[A] trial court must demonstrate a rational basis for its award, and ensure that the record is sufficient to permit meaningful review. The burden is on the party seeking restitution to provide an adequate factual basis for the claim.” (People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 664, emphasis added.) Restitution orders “contemplate more than a ‘bottom line’ sum.” (People v. Blakenship (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 992, 998.) To rely on inaccurate or incomplete information would violate due process. (People v. Eckley (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1080.) Restitution is not meant to turn trial courts into “a collection agency for the equivalent of a civil judgment imposed without a jury trial.” (People v. Carbajal (1999) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1127 (disn. opn. of Mosk, J.).) In order to receive court-ordered restitution, the injured party must prove a specific actual loss.		Even though an injured party is entitled to full restitution, that party cannot capriciously set an arbitrary amount for restitution. “The purpose of restitution is to make a victim whole, not to give a windfall.” (People v. Thygesen (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 988, 995.) Suffering from an accident should not be winning the lottery. Thus, the restitution statute requires a fair, accurate, and detailed factual basis of the economic losses sustained by the injured party. “[T]he restitution order shall be prepared by the sentencing court, shall identify each victim and each loss to which it pertains, and it shall be of a dollar amount that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct . . . .” (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f)(3), emphasis added.) “[A] trial court must demonstrate a rational basis for its award, and ensure that the record is sufficient to permit meaningful review. The burden is on the party seeking restitution to provide an adequate factual basis for the claim.” (People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 664, emphasis added.) Restitution orders “contemplate more than a ‘bottom line’ sum.” (People v. Blakenship (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 992, 998.) To rely on inaccurate or incomplete information would violate due process. (People v. Eckley (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1080.) Restitution is not meant to turn trial courts into “a collection agency for the equivalent of a civil judgment imposed without a jury trial.” (People v. Carbajal (1999) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1127 (disn. opn. of Mosk, J.).) In order to receive court-ordered restitution, the injured party must prove a specific actual loss.

			===Duty of victim to mitigate losses===

			"Determination of loss of use necessarily involves evidence as to a several factors. Initially, the trial court will have to determine the length of time it took (or reasonably should have taken) the victim to replace the stolen item. Next, the court will multiply the days lost by a reasonable rental rate. In computing what is reasonable, evidence will have to be supplied as to how often the item was rented and the annual (or monthly/daily) income it has historically produced." (Thygesen, at p. 995.)


			"[Victim] neither testified nor produced any documentary evidence as to how often the mixer was used. Nor did [Victim] give any explanation why the mixer had not been replaced in over 13 months. Despite that total lack of evidence, the trial court made an award based on the speculative proposition that the mixer would have been rented out every week for 13 months. Logic dictates that had the mixer been that valuable, [Victim] would have replaced it in a heartbeat. The fact that [Victim] did not do so leads to the suspicion that the mixer was not all that profitable or essential to the business." (Thygesen, at p. 995.)

	===Insurance===		===Insurance===

Sysop at 23:25, 20 May 2017

2017-05-20T23:25:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:25, 20 May 2017
Line 5:		Line 5:
	==Amount of restitution==		==Amount of restitution==

	"As to a victim, the purpose of the restitution statute is to make that victim whole, not to give a windfall. [Victim] is not entitled to replace a used mixer with a brand new one at appellant's expense, absent some extraordinary facts. If [victim] were a car rental agency that lost a 1995 Ford Taurus, it would be entitled to the replacement value of a similar 1995 Ford Taurus, not a 1999 model." (''People v. Thygesen'' (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 988.)		"As to a victim, the purpose of the restitution statute is to make that victim whole, not to give a windfall. [Victim] is not entitled to replace a used mixer with a brand new one at appellant's expense, absent some extraordinary facts. If [victim] were a car rental agency that lost a 1995 Ford Taurus, it would be entitled to the replacement value of a similar 1995 Ford Taurus, not a 1999 model." (''People v. Thygesen'' (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 988, 995.)


			Even though an injured party is entitled to full restitution, that party cannot capriciously set an arbitrary amount for restitution. “The purpose of restitution is to make a victim whole, not to give a windfall.” (People v. Thygesen (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 988, 995.) Suffering from an accident should not be winning the lottery. Thus, the restitution statute requires a fair, accurate, and detailed factual basis of the economic losses sustained by the injured party. “[T]he restitution order shall be prepared by the sentencing court, shall identify each victim and each loss to which it pertains, and it shall be of a dollar amount that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct . . . .” (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f)(3), emphasis added.) “[A] trial court must demonstrate a rational basis for its award, and ensure that the record is sufficient to permit meaningful review. The burden is on the party seeking restitution to provide an adequate factual basis for the claim.” (People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 664, emphasis added.) Restitution orders “contemplate more than a ‘bottom line’ sum.” (People v. Blakenship (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 992, 998.) To rely on inaccurate or incomplete information would violate due process. (People v. Eckley (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1080.) Restitution is not meant to turn trial courts into “a collection agency for the equivalent of a civil judgment imposed without a jury trial.” (People v. Carbajal (1999) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1127 (disn. opn. of Mosk, J.).) In order to receive court-ordered restitution, the injured party must prove a specific actual loss.

			===Insurance===
			Whose insurance company compensated the victim? If it was by the defendant's insurance company, that counts as if coming from the defendant. (People v. Bernal (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 155.) If it was the victim's own insurance company, your client probably just got screwed. A victim is entitled to restitution for all of the losses, even if the victim has been compensated by victim's insurance. (People v. Birkett (1999) 21 Cal.4th 226; In re Brittany L. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1381.) .)

	===Replacement cost or repair cost===		===Replacement cost or repair cost===

Sysop at 23:22, 20 May 2017

2017-05-20T23:22:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:22, 20 May 2017
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Non-economic damages. (''People v. Lehman'' (May 25, 2016, No. A144800) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, available at [http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A144800.PDF].)		Non-economic damages. (''People v. Lehman'' (May 25, 2016, No. A144800) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, available at [http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A144800.PDF].)

			==Amount of restitution==

			"As to a victim, the purpose of the restitution statute is to make that victim whole, not to give a windfall. [Victim] is not entitled to replace a used mixer with a brand new one at appellant's expense, absent some extraordinary facts. If [victim] were a car rental agency that lost a 1995 Ford Taurus, it would be entitled to the replacement value of a similar 1995 Ford Taurus, not a 1999 model." (''People v. Thygesen'' (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 988.)


			===Replacement cost or repair cost===
			People v. Stanley (2012) 54 Cal.4th 734

			==Modifying restitution==

			After probation has expired, a trial court lacks jurisdiction to impose restitution. (''People v. Waters'' (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 822.)

	"[A] trial court does not have jurisdiction to modify a defendant's probation to impose restitution after the defendant's probationary term has expired." (''Hilton v. Superior Court (2014) 239 Cal.App.4th 766.)		"[A] trial court does not have jurisdiction to modify a defendant's probation to impose restitution after the defendant's probationary term has expired." (''Hilton v. Superior Court (2014) 239 Cal.App.4th 766.)


			Penal Code section 1202.4(f)(1)

			Penal Code section 1202.46

			People v. Moreno (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 1

			People v. Bufford (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 966

Sysop at 23:17, 21 August 2016

2016-08-21T23:17:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:17, 21 August 2016
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Non-economic damages. (''People v. Lehman'' (May 25, 2016, No. A144800) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, available at [http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A144800.PDF].)		Non-economic damages. (''People v. Lehman'' (May 25, 2016, No. A144800) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, available at [http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A144800.PDF].)

			"[A] trial court does not have jurisdiction to modify a defendant's probation to impose restitution after the defendant's probationary term has expired." (''Hilton v. Superior Court (2014) 239 Cal.App.4th 766.)

Sysop: Created page with "'''Restitution''' Non-economic damages. (''People v. Lehman'' (May 25, 2016, No. A144800) _ Cal.App.4th _, available at [http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A1448..."

2016-05-26T04:42:31Z

Created page with "'''Restitution''' Non-economic damages. (''People v. Lehman'' (May 25, 2016, No. A144800) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, available at [http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A1448..."

New page

'''Restitution'''

Non-economic damages. (''People v. Lehman'' (May 25, 2016, No. A144800) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, available at [http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A144800.PDF].)