People v. Arnott CA3

California Court of Appeal Jul 29, 2014 No. C074275Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a district attorney's office is not a direct victim entitled to restitution for bad check offenses, and modified the judgment to award restitution to the actual vendor victims instead.

Issues

Whether a district attorney's office qualifies as a direct victim entitled to restitution for bad check offenses under Penal Code section 1202.4.
Whether the appellate court may modify a restitution order to name the correct victims rather than simply striking the award.

Disposition. modified and affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The People concede that the DA is not a direct victim and that the award to the DA is not proper”

“Because the trial court had no jurisdiction to award victim restitution to the DA, its order may be corrected on appeal notwithstanding the lack of contemporaneous objection.”

“We modify the judgment to order restitution to the direct victims of defendant’s conduct.”

Filed 7/29/14 P. v. Arnott CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta)

THE PEOPLE, C074275

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 11F2332, 11F7992, & 13F0495) v.

PAUL C. ARNOTT,

Defendant and Appellant.

In February 2013 defendant Paul C. Arnott entered no contest pleas in three superior court cases. In case No. 11F2332, he pleaded to forgery (Pen. Code, § 470, subd. (d))1 and identity theft (§ 530.5). In case No. 11F7992, he pleaded to failure to appear in court on the previous case. (§ 1320, subd. (b).) In case No. 13F495, he pleaded to evading the police with disregard for public safety. (Veh. Code, § 2800.2.) Defendant admitted that he committed the evading offense while released from custody in the two

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

previous cases. (§ 12022.1.) He also admitted having served a prior prison term. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) In exchange, two misdemeanor counts and four prison term allegations were dismissed. Defendant entered a Harvey2 waiver for restitution in an unfiled matter.3 Defendant was sentenced to prison for seven years four months, awarded 83 days’ custody credit and 83 days’ conduct credit, ordered to pay various fines and fees, and ordered to make restitution to his victims including $1,677.45 to the Shasta County District Attorney Bad Check Unit (DA). Defendant contends, and the People concede, the victim restitution award to the DA is improper because the DA was not the direct victim of any of defendant’s crimes. The concession moots defendant’s alternative claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the award to the DA. We modify the judgment to order restitution to the direct victims of defendant’s conduct. FACTS Because defendant’s contentions relate solely to the issue of victim restitution in the unfiled matter that is the subject of his Harvey waiver, the facts of the three filed cases are not at issue and need not be set forth in this opinion.4

People v. Arnott CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C074275

PAUL C. ARNOTT,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

BLEASE , J.

RAYE , P. J.

DUARTE , J.

AI Brief