Error and/or relief
The amount of the victim restitution order must be amended, the restitution collection fee must be stricken. And an error in the minute order must be corrected to reflect that two misdemeanors were dismissed.
First Holding:
Victims are entitled to an amount of restitution so as to make them whole but not more than their actual losses arising out of the defendant’s criminal conduct. Restitution is not intended to provide the victim with a windfall. Although the court’s discretion in setting the amount of restitution is broad, and it may use any rational method of fixing the amount of restitution as long as it is reasonably calculated to make the victim whole, here the court awarded the victim what amounts to a windfall.
Authority:
People v. Nichols (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 330, 342
People v. Baker (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 463, 470
Second Holding:
The 10 percent restitution collection fee is unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated.
Authority:
PEN 1465.9
People v. Greeley (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 609, 625 [On September 18, 2020, the Governor signed AB 1869, which eliminated the range of administrative fees that agencies and courts are authorized to impose to fund elements of the criminal legal system and eliminated all outstanding debt incurred as a result of the imposition of specified administrative fees.]
Third Holding:
The minute order fails to reflect that two misdemeanor counts were dismissed, and it must be corrected.
[Gary note: The court did not cite any authority for its order for correction, but there is plenty out there. I have set forth a few cases the court could have cited, for your convenience.]Authority:
People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387–388
People v. Gobert (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 676, 689
People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2