People v. Lynch CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Mar 14, 2025 No. G063226Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the defendant to pay restitution to the California Victim Compensation Board for a victim's relocation expenses, as the defendant's criminal conduct was a substantial factor in the victim's need to relocate for personal safety.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the defendant to pay restitution to the California Victim Compensation Board for a victim's relocation expenses.
Whether the victim's relocation expenses were a direct result of the defendant's criminal conduct or were instead caused by an eviction.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court found restitution to the Board was appropriate and ordered Lynch to pay $2,000 to the Board for Jane’s relocation expenses.”

“For restitution, the criminal conduct in question need not be the only cause of the victim’s loss, but merely must have played a “substantial factor” in causing the loss.”

“We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Lynch to pay $2,000 restitution to the Board.”

Filed 3/14/25 P. v. Lynch CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G063226

v. (Super. Ct. No. 21WF1734)

THOMAS JOSEPH LYNCH, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Erin Rowe, Judge. Affirmed. Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin Urbanski and Laura Baggett, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Thomas Joseph Lynch appeals the trial court’s order directing him to pay $2,000 to the California Victim Compensation Board (the Board) for Jane Doe’s relocation expenses.1 He contends the order should be reversed because the expenses did not result from his criminal conduct. We find no error and affirm the restitution order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. THE CHARGES AND PLEA In a first amended complaint, Lynch was charged with: stalking Jane whilst a restraining order was in effect on and between June 15, 2021 and June 28, 2021 (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b), count 1);2 dissuading a witness, Jane, by force or threat on June 28, 2021 (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1), count 2); attempting to dissuade a witness, Jane, on June 28, 2021 (§ 136.1, subd. (a)(2), count 3); making a criminal threat to Jane on June 28, 2021 (§ 422, subd. (a), count 4); six misdemeanor counts of violating a protective order (§ 166, subd. (c)(1)) on June 28, 2021 (counts 5 & 6), June 16 (count 8), June 15 (counts 10, 11, 12); misdemeanor aggravated trespass of Jane’s dwelling on June 15, 2021 (§ 602.5, subd. (b), count 7); making a criminal threat to John (§ 422, subd. (a), count 9); misdemeanor dissuading a witness, Jane, from testifying on June 28, 2021 (§ 136.1, subd. (a)(1), count 13); and misdemeanor domestic battery with corporal injury upon Jane on July 26, 2020 (§ 273.5, subd. (a), count 14).

People v. Lynch CA4/3

AI Brief

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

THOMAS JOSEPH LYNCH, OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

MOTOIKE, J.

O’LEARY, P. J.

GOETHALS, J.

AI Brief