People v. LaRoche

California Court of Appeal Oct 25, 2023 No. C097431Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that restitution for economic loss under Penal Code section 1202.4 does not include the costs of the experience or trip taken to acquire stolen property, as such expenses are not economic losses resulting from the defendant's criminal conduct.

Issues

Whether the costs of a hunting trip taken years prior to the theft constitute an 'economic loss' recoverable as victim restitution.
Whether a defendant's objection to the lack of documentation for a restitution claim is sufficient to preserve the issue of the restitution amount for appeal.

Disposition. Affirmed as modified

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We agree with defendant that the trial court erred when it included the hunting trip as an economic loss because the experience was not property lost as a result of defendant’s criminal conduct.”

“While the statutory framework for victim restitution is broad, we conclude it is not so broad as to include costs attendant to the acquisition of the stolen property.”

“We thus hold that the value of the property in this case, i.e., the “economic loss,” does not include the costs attendant to procuring the ram; the trial court erred in concluding otherwise.”

Filed 10/25/23 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097431

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62-178455A)

JEFFREY NELS MICHAEL LAROCHE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Placer County, Steven J. Howell, Judge. (Retired judge of the Butte Super. Ct., assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed as modified.

Francine R. Tone, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Ismah Ahmad, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A mounted ram’s head, with large double curling antlers creates an impressive image. Defendant Jeffrey Nels Michael LaRoche deprived Antonio Davila of such a hunting trophy and now seeks to challenge the amount of restitution ordered to Davila for its loss. Entitled to restitution for economic loss resulting from defendant’s criminal conduct, Davila claimed the loss of the ram’s head amounted to $7,500, which included the cost of the associated hunting trip, taken approximately 10 years prior. We agree with defendant that the trial court erred when it included the hunting trip as an economic loss because the experience was not property lost as a result of defendant’s criminal conduct. While the statutory framework for victim restitution is broad, we conclude it is not so broad as to include costs attendant to the acquisition of the stolen property. LEGAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Following the filing of a felony complaint, defendant entered a plea agreement wherein he agreed to plead no contest to three counts in exchange for a stipulated sentence and the dismissal of additional charges.1 Following the plea, he was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1))2 (count one), receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496, subd. (a)) (count three), and second degree burglary (§ 459) (count seven). Pursuant to the agreement, he was sentenced to an aggregate term of two years eight months in state prison.

People v. LaRoche

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C097431

JEFFREY NELS MICHAEL LAROCHE,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief