Serna

People v. Serna

Good Law
1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 727·203 Cal. App. 3d 728·249 Cal. Rptr. 861
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 22, 1988C003520California1,146 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sparks, J.

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to three counts of selling heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352). He was sentenced to state prison for a total term of seven years and eight months. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay a restitution fine of $1,600 and to pay direct restitution to the victim in the sum of $120.

Defendant’s sole contention is that the court erred in imposing the restitution fine pursuant to Government Code section 13967. According to defendant, on the facts of his case, only direct restitution was appropriate. We disagree, and shall affirm the judgment.

Discussion

Since the facts underlying defendant’s conviction are not at issue on appeal, we have no occasion to recite them. Instead, we turn directly to the restitution question, the only issue on appeal.

Government Code section 13967 is designed to compensate crime victims for economic losses suffered as a direct result of a crime. It accomplishes that goal by providing both for restitutions fines and for direct restitution payments to victims. The fines are deposited in the Restitution Fund in the State Treasury. (Gov. Code, § 13967, subd. (b).) Those funds are then available to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.