People v. Brindley CA1/4

Filed 11/24/25 P. v. Brindley CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A171871 v. TAYLOR STEPHEN BRINDLEY, (Marin County Super. Ct. No. SC205040A) Defendant and Appellant.

Taylor Stephen Brindley appeals a post-judgment order setting victim restitution under Penal Code1 section 1202.4 in the amount of $42,146.67. His appellate counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record for arguable issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel informed Brindley of his right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, which he has not done. Finding no arguable issues, we affirm. BACKGROUND In June 2018, Jimmy Lee Hogges was killed when the truck he was driving was struck by Brindley’s vehicle. In March 2019, Brindley was sentenced to eight years in state prison after he pled guilty to vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (§ 191.5, subd (a)) and driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or more and causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153,

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

subd. (b)) and admitted a great bodily injury sentence enhancement under section 12022.7, subd. (a)). The plea form signed by Brindley acknowledges that the trial court is “required to order restitution to the victim(s)” and the court retained jurisdiction after sentencing to do so. In May 2019, Hogges’s two children settled a lawsuit against Brindley, signing a release of all claims against him in exchange for a $250,000 payment made by Brindley’s insurance carrier. The attorneys for Hogges’s daughter retained $33,750 in contingent attorney fees from her share of the payment as well as other costs. In November 2023, the probation department filed a request to set a restitution hearing. The request indicated that Hogges’s daughter was requesting restitution in the amount of $41,607.24, including $37,165.63 for the attorney fees and costs incurred in the litigation against Brindley, $4,100.00 for lost wages, and $341.61 for funeral travel expenses.2 In April 2024, the probation department submitted an additional restitution request on behalf of Hogges’s brother in the amount of $5,403.23 for burial costs and travel expenses. After counsel was appointed for Brindley, both he and the People filed points and authorities regarding restitution. Brindley argued that the settlement and release satisfied his victim restitution obligation in this case because a payment by a defendant’s own insurer must be offset against his restitution obligation. The People argued that the settlement and release in the civil lawsuit did not affect the restitution owed by Brindley and that the claimant was entitled to the attorney fees she incurred in obtaining the civil