People v. Nonaka

Filed 9/30/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B313848 (Super. Ct. No. 2018044045) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Ventura County)

v.

NOLAN TAKAO NONAKA,

Defendant and Respondent.

A person who commits a simultaneous crime and a tort answers in two independent actions. Settlement of a tort claim in civil court operates independently of a settlement in criminal court. As we shall explain, the “People of the State of California” are not bound by a waiver of rights in civil court. Any purported waiver to the constitutional right to restitution in civil court is not enforceable in criminal court. The People appeal the denial of the motion for victim restitution, i.e., attorney fees and costs, after respondent was convicted by plea of felony driving with a .08 blood alcohol level or higher causing bodily injury. (Veh. Code, §§ 23153, subds. (a), (b), 23558; Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a).) The People contend the trial court erred when it concluded the civil settlement and

release of liability signed by the victim in the civil case discharged respondent’s obligation to pay restitution in the criminal case. We agree and reverse. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY While driving with a blood alcohol level of .14 percent, respondent ran a red light and crashed into another vehicle, severely injuring its occupants. Ame S. suffered a fractured pelvis. Her 14-year-old daughter, Lyla S., suffered multiple injuries including a lacerated spleen and ruptured kidney, for which she was hospitalized. Lyla also suffered back injuries and other minor injuries. As part of his negotiated plea, respondent acknowledged that he would be ordered to pay victim restitution in an amount to be determined at a restitution hearing in criminal court. Meanwhile, the victims hired an attorney on a contingency fee basis and settled a civil lawsuit against respondent. This settlement was paid by respondent’s insurance carrier in the amount of $235,000 for Ame and $200,000 for Lyla. As part of this settlement, Ame signed a general release in which she agreed to “release, discharge and acknowledge as fully paid and compromised, all claims, demands and causes of action” against respondent and his insurance carrier. (Capitalization omitted.) Nobody asked the People of the State of California if they agreed to this settlement. Prior to the restitution hearing in criminal court, the People filed briefing and requested that the trial court order respondent to pay victim restitution for attorney fees and costs. The People’s briefing included several documents that detailed the victims’ economic damages, including medical fees, attorney fees, and litigation costs. The exhibits also included the “Petition