O'NEAL

People v. O'NEAL

Good Law
122 Cal. App. 4th 817·19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 202·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1597·2004 Daily Journal DAR 11957·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8760
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 23, 2004B165551California1,724 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

A defendant is convicted of sexually molesting a child. The victim’s brother receives psychological counseling because of emotional damage he suffered as a result of the crime. Here we conclude the brother is a victim under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (k), and the trial court properly may order defendant to pay restitution to the agency that provided counseling to the brother.

Kevin Patrick O’Neal appeals his sentence after he pled guilty to two counts of committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14. (§ 288, subd. (a).) The court sentenced him to an eight-year prison term. It ordered victim restitution and imposed fines and penalty assessments. (§ 290.3.) We conclude, among other things, that the trial court did not err by ordering O’Neal to pay restitution for the psychological counseling expenses incurred by the brother of the victim. It also properly imposed two fines and penalty assessments. We order that an error in the abstract of judgment be corrected to conform to the trial court’s ruling. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.

FACTS

O’Neal lived with his girlfriend Audrey L. and her two children Shayna L., age eight, and David L., age 12.…

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.