People v. Schauman CA3

Filed 8/18/16 P. v. Schauman CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C078274

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 11-F-02854)

v.

LENNART CHRISTIAN SCHAUMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Lennart Christian Schauman was convicted of battery with serious bodily injury after he punched Adam Martinez, who fell to the ground, hit his head, and later died from the impact injury. As part of the victim-restitution order, the trial court included costs and attorney fees incurred by the parents in their civil action against defendant, which civil action resulted in a settlement for the limit of defendant’s homeowner’s insurance policy.

1

On appeal from the restitution order, defendant contends that the trial court should not have included the costs and attorney fees from the civil litigation because: (1) the civil settlement included a clause requiring the parents to hold harmless and indemnify defendant and his insurance company for any claim for costs and attorney fees, (2) the court improperly used the amount of the contingency fee rather than applying the lodestar method, (3) the parents were estopped from claiming costs and attorney fees, and (4) the inclusion of costs and attorney fees in the restitution order unconstitutionally impaired the contract between defendant and the parents. None of these contentions has merit. The provision of the civil settlement in which the parents agreed to hold harmless and indemnify defendant and his insurance company does not supersede the trial court’s duty to impose restitution for economic damages. Inclusion in the restitution order of the contingency fee paid by the parents, rather than a fee determined using the lodestar method, was proper because restitution is for actual economic damages. Defendant’s estoppel claim does not apply in this action which does not include the parents as a party. And inclusion in the restitution order of costs and attorney fees did not unconstitutionally impair the civil settlement between defendant and the parents because the order protects the vital interests of the state. BACKGROUND In a prior appeal, we affirmed defendant’s conviction for battery with serious bodily injury. (People v. Schauman (Oct. 3, 2013, C070009) [nonpub. opn.].) On January 26, 2012, the trial court entered a victim restitution order totaling $387,514.11, covering various items of economic loss to the estate of the victim (mostly costs owed to