Bernal

People v. Bernal

Good Law
101 Cal. App. 4th 155·123 Cal. Rptr. 2d 622·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4505·2002 Daily Journal DAR 9309·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7493
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 13, 2002B154169California5,199 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nott, J.

This appeal involves restitution for a victim of criminal conduct. In the central holding, we decide that the payment to a victim by a defendant’s insurance carrier qualifies as a payment “directly from” that defendant, under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivisions (a)(1) and (f)(2).

The People appeal from an order determining that respondent Rogelio Ayala Bemal had satisfied his restitution obligation to his victim, Tracy Russell. Appellant contends that (1) a release of liability given by Russell to respondent’s insurance company as part of a settlement did not release respondent from his restitution obligation, (2) the trial court erred in offsetting the settlement proceeds against respondent’s restitution obligation, and (3) the trial court abdicated its judicial function by deferring to the conclusion of the probation department that respondent’s restitution obligation had been satisfied.

We reverse and remand.

Factual and Procedural Background

Pursuant to a plea agreement, respondent was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)) and causing great bodily injury (Pen. Code § 12022.7, subd. (a)). In March of 2000, the trial…

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.