People v. Scarbrough

Filed 9/27/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H046161 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1766594)

v.

KAREN LYNN SCARBROUGH,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Karen Lynn Scarbrough challenges the trial court’s authority to order as part of a prison sentence victim restitution to reimburse Santa Clara County for the cost of her extradition from Virginia after she failed to appear for sentencing. Concluding that the court exceeded its authority under Penal Code section 1202.4, we will modify the judgment to strike that restitution, and affirm the judgment as modified. I. BACKGROUND Defendant was charged by criminal complaint with seven counts of human trafficking. (Pen. Code, § 236.1, subd. (c); counts 1 through 7. Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.) She pleaded no contest to an orally amended count 8 (§ 236.1, subd. (a)) and agreed to a five-year prison term as part of a negotiated disposition. Defendant was released from custody on her own recognizance and she was ordered to appear for sentencing two months later. She entered a Cruz waiver, giving the trial court the power to “withdraw its approval of the [] plea and impose a sentence in excess of the bargained-for term” in the event she willfully failed to appear for sentencing. (People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247, 1254, fn. 5.)

Defendant did not report to pretrial services after her release as she had been ordered to do, nor did she appear at the sentencing hearing. A bench warrant was issued. Defendant was arrested in Virginia, extradited to California, and sentenced to the middle term of eight years in state prison. The court also ordered defendant to pay $9,363.92 restitution to Santa Clara County for the cost of her extradition. II. DISCUSSION Defendant argues the trial court lacked authority to order restitution for the county’s extradition costs under section 1202.4, which addresses a crime victim’s right to restitution in criminal cases. Her claim presents a legal question which was not forfeited by her failure to object in the trial court. (People v. Slattery (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1091, 1095.) Subdivision (a)(1) of section 1202.4 declares the Legislature’s intent “that a victim of crime who incurs an economic loss as a result of the commission of a crime shall receive restitution directly from a defendant convicted of that crime.” A court is required to order restitution to a victim “in every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct.” (Id., subd. (f).) A government agency comes within the statutory definition of victim “when that entity is a direct victim of a crime.” (Id., subd. (k)(2).) In People v. Ozkan (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1072 (Ozkan) the defendant was convicted of grand theft by fraud and filing false and fraudulent tax returns. (Id. at p. 1073.) The court rejected the argument that restitution could be ordered under section 1202.4 to reimburse law enforcement agencies for costs incurred in investigating the defendant’s criminal conduct leading to the conviction because “[u]nder the relevant case law and the statutory scheme, public agencies are not directly ‘victimized’ for purposes of restitution under Penal Code section 1202.4 merely because they spend money to investigate crimes or apprehend criminals.” (Ozkan, at p. 1077.) Similarly, the court in People v. Torres (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1 (Torres) concluded that a sheriff’s 2