People v. Vasquez
Citation | 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 16,10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 15,190 Cal.App.4th 1126,119 Cal.Rptr.3d 29 |
Decision Date | 28 December 2010 |
Docket Number | No. B218802.,B218802. |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Orlando VASQUEZ, Defendant and Appellant. |
Christopher Blake, San Diego, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Susan D. Martynec and Russell A. Lehman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
As part of the resolution of a criminal case charging him with two felony counts of failure to control a mischievous animal that caused serious bodily injury (Pen.Code, § 399, subd. (b)),1 Orlando Vasquez agreed to pay $168,633.20 in restitution to Heiddy G., a young girl who had been severely mauled by his pit bull. Vasquez subsequently moved to have the court declare his restitution obligation satisfied, contending a $300,000 payment to settle a civil suit against Vasquez and his landlord, funded by the landlord's insurer through a homeowners policy that also insured Vasquez, is properly deemed restitution made directly from Vasquez within the meaning of section 1202.4 and constituted a full offset to the restitution award. The trial court denied the motion, observing its restitution order had expressly stated Heiddy was still receiving medical treatment and provided any additional losses she sustained could be recovered in a civil action. We affirm.
On June 9, 2006 Vasquez's pit bull escaped from his residence on North Hagar Street in the City of San Fernando. (The property was apparently owned by Antonio Mora.) The animal entered the San Fernando Middle School grounds where it cornered and savagely attacked Heiddy, a student in the seventh grade, while she was in one of the school's bathrooms. Heiddy suffered extensive injuries, which required multiple surgeries.
On June 12, 2006 Vasquez was charged in a felony complaint with two counts of violating section 399, subdivision (b), failing to control a mischievous animal that causes serious bodily injury: 2 Count 1 of the complaint was based on the attack on Heiddy; count 2 alleged Vasquez had allowed the pit bull to cause serious injury to another victim (Michael Mirmelli) between December 1, 2005 and January 31, 2006.
On August 24, 2006 Vasquez entered into a negotiated plea agreement: Vasquez pleaded no contest to count 1 of the complaint, the People's motion to dismiss count 2 was continued to the date of sentencing.3 On September 7, 2006, before the Hon. Harvey Giss, Vasquez was sentenced to three years of formal probation on condition he serve 180 days in the Los Angeles county jail and not own any dogs during the period of probation. A victim restitution hearing was set for December 4, 2006. Count 2 was dismissed by the court pursuant to the terms of the negotiated agreement.
At the restitution hearing on December 4, 2006, also before Judge Giss, Vasquez stipulated to a restitution amount of $168,633.20, the damages suffered by Heiddy "so far." The court explained at the hearing, The deputy district attorney responded, The court agreed with the prosecutor's position, noting, The court then stated,
The order for restitution and abstract of judgment signed by Judge Giss following the restitution hearing specifies the restitution awarded is for the victim's "medical expenses." The minute order from the hearing directing payment of restitution provides,
In December 2006 Heiddy, through her parent and guardian ad litem, filed a civil action against Vasquez, Mora and Maria Ruiz, who apparently also lived at the North Hagar Street residence where Vasquez kept the pit bull, as well as the Los Angeles Unified School District, the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Control and the City of San Fernando. Heiddy alleged causes of action for strict liability and negligence against Vasquez, Mora and Ruiz and for negligence against the school district, the county and the city.
On October 1, 2007 the superior court (Hon. Melvin D. Sandvig) approved a compromise of minor's disputed claim on behalf Heiddy against Vasquez, Mora and Ruiz. The settlement provided for a total payment in favor of Heiddy of $300,000 from Mora's homeowners insurance, which also covered Vasquez as an insured. Of the total settlement, $75,000 was payable to Heiddy's attorney for legal fees, and $22,335 was identified as reimbursement for medical and other expenses paid by Heiddy or her attorney. The balance of $202,665 was used to fund a structured settlement annuity from Allstate Assignment Company. On November 29, 2007 Heiddy's counsel filed a request for dismissal with prejudice of her action as to Vasquez, Mora, Ruiz and the Los Angeles Unified School District only. The clerk entered the dismissal the same day.4
On August 24, 2009 Vasquez filed a motion "to order satisfaction of restitution," contending under People v. Short (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 899, 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 154 ( Short ), although the $300,000 civil settlement payment had been made by Mora's homeowners insurance, that payment must be deemed to be restitution to the victim directly from Vasquez within the meaning of section 1202.4, subdivision (a)(1), and constituted a full offset to the $166,633.20 restitution award. In support of the motion Vasquez submitted the declaration of the Allstate Insurance Company claim representative who had handled Heiddy's claim. The representative stated Allstate Insurance had paid Heiddy its entire $300,000 policy limit for bodily injury in exchange for a release, through Heiddy's guardian ad litem and her legal counsel, of "any further claims against Mr. Vasquez for injuries [Heiddy] sustained as a result of the alleged dog bite." According to the representative, "Allstate would not have paid [Heiddy] its $300,000 policy limit if she did not give up her right to seek any further payment from Mr. Vasquez." No copy of any settlement documents or the release itself was submitted with Vasquez's motion.
The People filed a response, arguing the settlement payment by Allstate Insurance on behalf of Vasquez did not satisfy his court-ordered restitution in the criminal action. The People explained Heiddy's actual and future projected medical costs at the time of the restitution hearing far exceed the $168,633.20 ordered and contended the sum paid in the civil settlement for additional medical expenses (at most, $22,335) was anticipated by the restitution order, which expressly authorized Heiddy to recover any such additional costs through a civil action. The response included a copy of a March 2007 expert medical report prepared for Heiddy's attorney in connection with her civil action, which detailed her extensive injuries, multiple surgeries and other medical procedures and projected costs of future treatment.
The court denied Vasquez's motion following a hearing on September 3, 2009. The court explained, in its view, the issue raised by Vasquez's motion was not only whether a payment by Allstate Insurance on behalf of Vasquez was properly considered restitution directly from him—the legal question addressed in Short, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th 899, 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 154—but also whether the settlement payment was for medical expenses included within the original restitution award, for which a setoff might be appropriate, or for additional, post-restitution-award costs, as well as pain and suffering, resulting from the pit bull attack: The court reiterated its restitution order had expressly stated Heiddy was still receiving medical treatment and provided any additional losses she sustained could be recovered in a civil action.
Section 1202.4, subdivision (a)(1), provides, "It is the intent of the Legislature that a victim of crime who incurs any economic loss as a result of the commission of a crime shall receive restitution directly from any defendant convicted of that crime." With several limited exceptions not relevant here, section 1202.4, subdivision (f), in turn, provides, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Selivanov
... ... does not reflect the willingness of the People to accept that sum in satisfaction of the defendant's rehabilitative and deterrent debt to society." [Citation.]" ( People v. Vasquez (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1133, 119 Cal.Rptr.3d 29.) "[A] release by the victim cannot act to release a defendant from his financial debt to the state any more than it could terminate his prison sentence." ( People v. Bernal (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 155, 162, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 622.) 22 These ... ...
- Advanced Network, Inc. v. Peerless Ins. Co.
-
People v. Dejesus
... ... " It has so provided since 2000. (Stats. 1999, ch. 121, 1, p. 1741; Stats. 1999, ch. 584, 4, p. 4144.) 3. The statute is generally not intended to compensate a victim for the noneconomic losses of pain and suffering (see People v. Vasquez (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1132), except for "[n]oneconomic losses, including, but not limited to, psychological harm, for felony violations of Section 288." ( 1202.4, subd. (f)(3)(F); former subsection (E); added by Stats. 1996, ch. 629, 3, p. 3467; People v. Smith (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th ... ...
-
Barickman v. Mercury Cas. Co.
... ... Law under [ People v. Bernal (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 155 [123 Cal.Rptr.2d 622] ]. 2 Cal.App.5th 514 2. The Personal Injury Action; the Continuing Dispute Regarding ... ( People v. Vasquez (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1133, 119 Cal.Rptr.3d 29 ( Vasquez ).) An order of restitution pursuant to [Penal Code] section 1202.4 does not ... ...
-
Restitution
...award should be prepared to submit verification of the payment as he bears the burden of proof of it. People v. Vasquez (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1137. §14:34.5 Negotiating Amount As Part Of Plea Agreement In many cases, for the reasons mentioned herein, restitution amounts may not be d......