People v. Bufford
Decision Date | 12 January 2007 |
Docket Number | No. A108741.,A108741. |
Citation | 146 Cal.App.4th 966,53 Cal.Rptr.3d 273 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Angela BUFFORD, Defendant and Respondent. |
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of the State of California, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Laurence K. Sullivan, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Catherine A. Rivlin, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, for Appellant.
James F. Johnson, by Appointment of the Court of Appeal, First District Appellate Project, for Respondent.
The People appeal an order denying their motion to set the amount of victim restitution payable by defendant Angela Bufford. We reverse and remand.
In 1997, defendant and several codefendants were charged with multiple offenses involving elderly victims. The trial court dismissed three of the counts, and the People appealed. In February 2000, while the appeal was pending, defendant pled guilty to one count of elder theft from alleged victim Richard Nelson. When it took the plea, the court made clear that a restitution order would be specific to Mr. Nelson and not to a specific count of the 96 count indictment. Defendant's counsel replied, "I understand that restitution will be specific to alleged victim Richard Nelson and we understand that we're entitled to a hearing on that and we will be submitting arguments to your Honor at a restitution hearing as to why my client should or should not pay all, some or none of the amounts related to him."1
Defendant was sentenced to four years in prison, with 1,297 days credit. She was also ordered to make restitution to the victim's family, with the amount to be determined by subsequent court order. The court stated:
At the May 12, 2000, hearing, the prosecutor calculated the loss to the victim at $24,400, plus the value of a vehicle purchased in defendant's name. When the prosecutor asked the court to have defendant convey title to the vehicle, defendant objected and requested a hearing to set restitution. Defense counsel requested that the hearing be put over until "after Ms. Bufford gets out," but the court scheduled it for her last day in custody and ordered the People to give defense counsel a written calculation of the amount owing two weeks beforehand.
The restitution hearing was thereafter repeatedly continued, as the parties disputed whether the plea bargain took into account the charges involved in the pending appeal, and defense counsel stated that in the circumstances his client would assert a privilege against self-incrimination at any restitution hearing. The court acknowledged that issues concerning the charges that were involved in the pending appeal could affect the finality of defendant's plea, and therefore declined to conduct a restitution hearing until the remaining counts were resolved.
In December 2001, this court reinstated the dismissed charges against defendant. (People v. Steiner (Dec. 20, 2001, A088431, 2001 WL 1646748) [nonpub. opn.].) In July 2004, the People moved to dismiss those charges, but specifically reserved the right to "recalendar" the restitution hearing.
The parties next appeared on August 19, 2004, when the prosecution again sought to determine restitution. Defendant objected on the grounds that the trial court no longer had jurisdiction over her to order restitution because her sentence was fully served. The court ordered briefing and put the matter over until September.
In September 2004, the court heard the People's motion to set and impose restitution. Defendant argued that the trial court had lost jurisdiction as a result of the passage of time and defendant's completion of her sentence. The trial court denied the People's motion. This appeal followed.
Article I, section 28 was added to the California Constitution by initiative measure adopted by the voters June 8, 1982. Subdivision (b) provides, in part, "that all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to restitution" and that
Implementing legislation was added to Penal Code section 1202.42 that now provides, in relevant part that (§ 1202.4, subd. (f).)
Defendant claims that during a hearing related to sentencing, the court stated that she was required to make restitution, but did not actually order her to do so. But the record of her sentencing hearing states otherwise. When it sentenced defendant, the court stated, "She is also to make restitution to the family of Richard Nelson ...," and that the determination of the amount was properly deferred for subsequent determination pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (f).3
Defendant argues the trial court lost jurisdiction to order restitution, because she fully served her sentence before the final restitution hearing was held. Her argument is without merit. Section 1202.46 specifically provides that 4 (See People v. Moreno (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 1, 8-12, 132 Cal. Rptr.2d 918; People v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Petronella
...the time of sentencing, there is no limitation upon when the court must next set a restitution hearing....” (People v. Bufford (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 966, 971, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 273.) The court could have imposed sentence on defendant and continued the restitution hearing if it felt additional......
-
Hilton v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.
...v. TurrinDo Not Authorize Restitution After a Probationary Term Has Expired. The People argue that under People v. Bufford (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 966, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 273 (Bufford ), and Turrin, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th 1200, 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 471, the trial court retained jurisdiction to impose ......
-
Hilton v. Superior Court
...v. Turrin Do Not Authorize Restitution After a Probationary Term Has Expired .The People argue that under People v. Bufford (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 966, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 273 ( Bufford ), and Turrin, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th 1200, 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 471, the trial court retained jurisdiction to impos......
-
People v. Smalling
...right to a restitution hearing with a civil lawsuit and its attendant costs, discovery, and delays. (See People v. Bufford (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 966, 971, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 273 [although a crime victim may file a civil lawsuit against a defendant, that recourse is not an appropriate substitut......
-
Restitution
...at a later date (PC §§1202.4(f)), 1202.46. The court retains jurisdiction to determine and set the amount. People v. Bufford (2007) 146 Cal. App. 4th 966, 971. Absent a stipulation it is almost always referred to Probation for its determination. A hearing is ultimately set if the defendant,......
-
Table of cases
...People v. Buell (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 682, §10:94.5 People v. Bueno (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 342, §3:58.5 People v. Bufford (2007) 146 Cal. App. 4th 966, 971, §14:31 People v. Bui (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 675, §9:02.1 People v. Buller (1979) 101 Cal.App.3d 73, 75-76, §4:15.1 People v. Bullock (1......