People v. Colosimo CA4/1

Filed 11/10/25 P. v. Colosimo CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D085059

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD298307)

KENDALL COLOSIMO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lisa R. Rodriguez, Judge. Affirmed. Stephanie L. Gunther, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Daniel Rogers, Alana C. Butler and Amanda Lloyd, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Kendall Colosimo pled guilty to hit and run with death or permanent serious injury in violation of Vehicle Code section 20001, subdivision (b)(2). The trial court ordered Colosimo to pay restitution to the minor victim’s parents for the wages they lost while caring for their injured son. Colosimo

argues on appeal that: (1) the court erred in granting lost wages for the parents after the victim reached the age of majority; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the portion of the order granting restitution for the mother’s lost wages; and (3) the court should have offset the restitution award by $90,000, the amount of the insurance settlement after subtracting attorney fees and medical bills. We conclude that (1) the trial court correctly found the parents were entitled to lost wages as victims themselves under article I, section 28(e) of the California Constitution; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that the mother was owed lost wages; and (3) the court properly offset the restitution amount by the insurance settlement. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In March 2023, 17-year-old A.A. was on a bicycle and preparing to make a turn when a black SUV struck him from behind at approximately 30 miles per hour. The minor was thrown from his bike, and the driver of the SUV did not slow down or stop. The accident left the minor with a shattered pelvis, requiring two surgeries and ten days in the surgical intensive care unit. He turned 18 three and a half months after the accident. After receiving a tip from a witness, the police found a black SUV with front end damage at Colosimo’s residence. A few days later, almost a week after the accident, Colosimo surrendered to police. During the investigation, law enforcement found video footage of Colosimo at a bowling alley consuming alcohol over the span of two hours just before the incident. The surveillance video showed him swaying, staggering, and nearly tripping before leaving the bowling alley.