People v. Dunham CA1/5

Filed 3/12/26 P. v. Dunham CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, A172041 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Del Norte County Super. Ct. No. CRF22-9071) LINDSEY BROOKE DUNHAM, Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Lindsey Brooke Dunham pled guilty to theft by a public officer (Pen. Code, § 424, subd. (a))1 and was sentenced to two years in state prison. The trial court ordered her to pay restitution to the insurer of her public employer, the victim of her theft. Dunham appeals from that restitution order, contending that the insurer is not a “direct victim” eligible for restitution under section 1202.4. We agree and vacate the order. BACKGROUND Dunham was the accounts manager for Smith River Community Services District (District), which “provides water service to approximately twenty-two hundred residents.” For roughly 22 months, she stole cash payments from those residents intended for the District. Dunham pled guilty to theft by a public officer (§ 424, subd. (a)), and the trial court denied

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

probation and sentenced her to two years in state prison. At the restitution hearing, the District estimated that Dunham stole a total of $86,909.67. Because the District’s insurer, Allied World Insurance Company (Allied), had already reimbursed the District for $85,909.67 of those losses—leaving the District responsible only for its $1,000 deductible—the People asked the trial court to order Dunham to pay $1,000 to the District and $85,909.67 to Allied. Dunham did not object to this request, and the court issued two restitution orders: one ordering her to pay $1,000 to the District (District restitution order) and one ordering her to pay $85,909.67 to Allied (Allied restitution order). After we granted her motion for leave to file a belated notice of appeal, Dunham timely appealed. DISCUSSION Dunham does not challenge the District restitution order or the total amount of restitution awarded by the trial court. Instead, she contends that the Allied restitution order should be reversed solely because Allied was not a “direct victim” of her crime as required by section 1202.4. (Id., subd. (k)(2).) Reviewing that order for abuse of discretion (People v. Gomez (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 111, 116), we agree.2 “[I]n every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct, the court shall require that the defendant make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount established by court order, based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim or victims or any other showing to the court.” (§ 1202.4, subd. (f).) As relevant here, “victim”