Peoples v. Corners
Decision Date | 23 December 1985 |
Citation | 176 Cal.App.3d 139,221 Cal.Rptr. 387 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. James Allen CORNERS, Defendant and Respondent. Crim. 13854. |
Latimer, Kenkel & Bussey and Jerry J. Kenkel, Chico, for defendant and respondent.
The issue presented in this appeal is whether a defendant who is convicted of unlawfully leaving the scene of an injury-accident but acquitted of criminal wrongdoing for the accident itself may be ordered to pay restitution to the injured person. Defendant James Corners was charged with assault with a deadly weapon by use of an automobile and infliction of great bodily injury (Pen.Code, §§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 12022.7) and with unlawfully leaving the scene of an accident in which a person was injured (Veh.Code, §§ 20001, 20003). 1 A jury found defendant guilty of
the hit-and-run violation but acquitted him of the assault charges. The trial court placed defendant on five years probation and denied the People's request to order the payment of restitution to the injured person. The People in this appeal challenge the court's refusal to order the requested restitution. We conclude the court properly refused to order restitution and shall affirm.
On July 14, 1982, an altercation took place between defendant and Roger Cetina at a bowling alley. A third person, Rex Kleinert, became involved in the altercation. After some pushing and shoving defendant began driving away in his van. Kleinert climbed onto the back of the van to obtain its license number. After Kleinert jumped off the van, defendant drove over a curb and across a sidewalk and landscaped area and hit or ran over Kleinert, severely injuring him. Defendant left the scene without stopping to identify himself or render aid.
There is no evidence in the record before us that Kleinert's injuries were aggravated in any manner by defendant's failure to stop and render assistance. We therefore assume Kleinert's injuries stemmed solely from being struck by defendant's van.
Trial courts have broad discretion under Penal Code section 1203.1 to prescribe conditions of probation, including the payment of restitution to the victim of the crime of which defendant was convicted. 3 (People v. Richards (1976) 17 Cal.3d 614, 619, 131 Cal.Rptr. 537, 552 P.2d 97.) Such discretion is not unlimited, however. (Ibid.) Generally, a condition of probation is invalid if it " '(1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality....' " (People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486, 124 Cal.Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d 545.)
Unlike other jurisdictions, California courts do not limit restitution to the actual losses caused by the crime of which defendant was convicted. "But courts must tread lightly in this area lest they be reduced to 'mere collection agencies' [citations], and restitution must in each case be narrowly tailored to serve a purpose described in section 1203.1." (People v. Richards, supra, 17 Cal.3d at pp. 619-620, 131 Cal.Rptr. 537, 552 P.2d 97, italics added.) As the court in Richards explains: (Id., at p. 620, 131 Cal.Rptr. 537, 552 P.2d 97.) However, (Ibid.)
No matter how compelling the evidence of civil liability may be, the jury in a criminal case makes no finding of such liability. At the criminal trial, defendant need only raise a reasonable doubt regarding the elements of the crime charged. No duty is placed upon him, nor could it be, to prove that he is not civilly liable. Any legal conclusion in a criminal trial that he is so liable contravenes defendant's due process rights. (Id., at p. 621, 131 Cal.Rptr. 537, 552 P.2d 97.)
"Thus, 'Restitution or reparation is not a substitute for a civil action to recover damages' [citation], and a defendant's duty of restitution cannot be predicated merely on a purported debt." (Ibid.) However, as "California courts have approved the imposition for rehabilitative purposes of restitution not limited to the loss caused by the offense of which the defendant was convicted," the question is whether an order to pay restitution serves "a demonstrably rehabilitative purpose." (Id., at pp. 621-622, 131 Cal.Rptr. 537, 552 P.2d 97.)
In Richards, defendant was charged with two counts of grand theft involving two different persons arising out of the sale of mining claims and quitclaim deeds. The jury convicted defendant as to one sale, but found him not guilty of the charge arising from a sale to one William Ward. The trial court placed defendant on probation and imposed a condition that he pay $925 in "restitution" to Ward.
In reversing the order of restitution, the Supreme Court found no evidence that defendant committed the acts toward Ward with the same state of mind as the acts for which he was convicted. Thus, "making defendant pay restitution to Ward would [not] in any way rehabilitate him for his proved criminal behavior toward Mrs. Garbuio [the victim of the other crime]." (17 Cal.3d at pp. 623-624, 131 Cal.Rptr. 537, 552 P.2d 97.)
It is irrelevant that the burden of proof is lighter in a civil case. (Id., at p. 624, 131 Cal.Rptr. 537, 552 P.2d 97.)
The court distinguised the case of People v. Lent, supra, 15 Cal.3d 481, 124 Cal.Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d 545, in which the defendant, a law firm investigator, negotiated with an insurance carrier for the settlement of a claim for personal injuries of the daughter of a former client of the firm, after the firm withdrew from the case. Defendant received a check for $1,278 on the daughter's behalf, which her mother signed. Although the amount was to be applied to the payment of medical bills, defendant did not pay them. The mother received an additional check from the insurance carrier and paid $500 of the proceeds to defendant, which he represented was for this employer's attorney fees. Defendant pocketed the money for himself. Defendant was charged with grand theft as to each transaction. He was acquitted of a theft charge arising from the $1,278 transaction and was convicted on the $500 transaction. The court placed defendant on probation and ordered him to pay restitution for the total funds, including those represented by the charge of which he was acquitted.
The People, relying on the lesser burden of proof in a civil tort action, argued the evidence was sufficient to support a civil judgment in the amount of the $1,278. The court rejected this argument. (People v. Lent, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 487, 124 Cal.Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d 545.)
The court, however, held there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ordering restitution of the full funds under the particular circumstances of that case. As the court observed, (Ibid.)
In People v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Goulart
... ... 290; see also People v. Lent, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 486, 124 Cal.Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d 545; People v. Corners (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 139, 143, 221 Cal.Rptr. 387.) ... Goulart maintains each of the three conditions for challenging a condition of ... ...
-
People v. Carbajal
...follows that imposition of restitution for the act of driving cannot serve a valid rehabilitative purpose."]; People v. Corners (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 139, 148, 221 Cal.Rptr. 387 ["As there is no evidence in the present case that defendant's criminal conduct in leaving the scene aggravated [......
-
People v. Stephen
...liability or damages. (People v. Richards (1976) 17 Cal.3d 614, 620, 131 Cal.Rptr. 537, 552 P.2d 97; accord, People v. Corners (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 139, 143-144, 221 Cal.Rptr. 387.) In certain cases a victim may receive restitution from a defendant through the criminal process. In such a c......
- Meza v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC
-
Additional charges
...court but they are not binding authority. People v. Gokcek (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th Supp. 8, 20, fn. 3; and People v. Corners (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 139, 146). In a business district, a U-Turn is legal only at an intersection and must be started from the far left lane for the driver’s directio......
-
Table of cases
...§2:84.1 People v. Corbett (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 670, §7:73 People v. Corder (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 554, §2:84.2 People v. Corners (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 139, 146, §2:18 People v. Coronado (1995) 12 Cal.4th 145, §10:31.3 People v. Corrales (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th, §2:29 People v. Corsini (1984) ......