People v. Washburn, Cr. 10286
Decision Date | 11 October 1979 |
Docket Number | Cr. 10286 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Donald Ray WASHBURN, Defendant and Appellant. |
Ford & Franchi and Donald R. Franchi, Woodland, for defendant and appellant.
George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Arnold O. Overoye, Asst. Atty. Gen., Roger E. Venturi and Ramon M. de la Guardia, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
This case is before us on certification from the Yolo County Superior Court after a decision by its appellate department. We granted the transfer to this court for the purpose of determining whether an order of restitution of money imposed by a municipal court upon a convicted criminal defendant as a condition of probation is a "debt" dischargeable in bankruptcy. This is a question of law which to our knowledge has not heretofore been directly decided in this state.
The Appellate Department of the Superior Court of Yolo County rendered its opinion that there can be no discharge. The case was appealed to the appellate department of the superior court on a settled statement of fact, and is certified here on such facts, as follows:
Defendant principally contended before the appellate department of the superior court, and here, that the law of the United States on bankruptcy is the supreme law of the land on that subject and it would therefore be contrary to the United States Constitution to impose upon him a condition of probation requiring restitution of a "debt" which had been lawfully discharged in bankruptcy.
The rationale of the appellate department was that bankruptcy obviously relates to "provable debts" (see, e. g., 11 U.S.C. § 1(14)) but that amount ordered to be paid by the municipal court as restitution is not a "debt" within the meaning of the bankruptcy law. The appellate department concluded that a condition of probation which consisted of restitution to a victim of a criminal act could have no relationship to a "debt" to the victim, since it is part of a judgment of conviction and is for the purpose of punishment, rehabilitation and helping to insure defendant will lead a law-abiding life.
Defendant contends that the appellate department "failed to recognize the very fundamental difference between willful and intentional acts which are non-dischargeable under the Bankruptcy Law and the type of act (negligence) which resulted in the damages suffered by the State of California."
It appears to us that quite the contrary is true. That court plainly recognized the difference to which defendant adverts, insofar as it is pertinent to a normal bankruptcy situation. That court stated in its opinion that (Emphasis added.) We believe this point of distinction to be well taken.
The case of People v. Richards (1976) 17 Cal.3d 614, 131 Cal.Rptr. 537, 552 P.2d 97, contains a recent and appropriate discussion of the nature of probation and the relationship of restitution or reparation as a natural part of the concept of probation in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Goebel
...107 S.Ct. at pp. 362-363; see also People v. Calhoun (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 568, 570-572, 193 Cal.Rptr. 394; People v. Washburn (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 621, 622-626, 158 Cal.Rptr. 822.) The focus of the court's inquiry was section 523(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code, which protects from discharge ......
-
Kelly v. Robinson
...reasoning, see People v. Topping Bros., 79 Misc.2d 260, 262, 359 N.Y.S.2d 985, 987-988 (Crim.Ct.1974); People v. Washburn, 97 Cal.App.3d 621, 625-626, 158 Cal.Rptr. 822, 825 (1979). 8 In many cases, of course, principles of issue preclusion would obviate the need for the bankruptcy court to......
-
People v. Phillips
...is abundantly clear restitution has a relationship to the crime of which Phillips stands convicted. (See, e.g., People v. Washburn (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 621, 158 Cal.Rptr. 822.) Civil Code section 1714, subdivision (a), provides, in pertinent part, "Every one is responsible, not only for the......
-
People v. Gruntz
...but appears to be designed to coerce the parent into recognizing his or her obligations to the child. (Cf. People v. Washburn (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 621, 625-626, 158 Cal.Rptr. 822.) Notwithstanding the practical effect that prosecution under this section may have, we find that the current pr......
-
Restitution
...50, Conversion of a restitution order to a civil judgment does not make it dischargeable under Chapter 7; People v. Washburn (1979) 97 Cal. App. 3d 621 (Bankruptcy Act does not apply to restitution orders). For more information: Williamson, John H., The Bankruptcy Issues Handbook (Lakewood,......
-
Table of cases
...v. Warnes (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th Supp. 35, §14:50 People v. Wash (1993) 6 Cal.4th 215, §§4:15, 5:45.3, 5:45.5 People v. Washburn (1979) 97 Cal. App. 3d 621, §14:50 People v. Washburn (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 937, §§7:88.3, 12:14.3 People v. Washington (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 590, 591, §14:23 Pe......