Pinedo

People v. Pinedo

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 52·60 Cal. App. 2d 1403·60 Cal. App. 4th 1403·71 Cal. Rptr. 2d 151·98 Daily Journal DAR 725
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 21, 1998B111299California939 words

Opinion

Opinion

Coffee, J.

Appellant Alfredo Vidal Pinedo was ordered to pay direct victim restitution as a condition of his probation. The amount included attorney’s fees incurred by the victim to secure a civil settlement from appellant’s insurance carrier. Because appellant failed to demonstrate the amount of fees was unreasonable, we affirm.

Facts

Appellant was in a traffic collision while driving with a blood-alcohol level of .19 percent. His car spun out of control and hit a car driven by Jonathan Richards, who was injured as a result. Richards retained counsel and received a civil settlement of $22,000 for claims arising from the collision. The settlement was paid by appellant’s insurance carrier and compensated Richards for lost wages, medical bills, and property damage to his car. Of the settlement, $7,333 was paid to Richard’s attorney as a contingency fee.

Appellant pled no contest to one count of driving under the influence and causing injury. (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a).) He was placed on probation and ordered to pay direct victim restitution to Richards under Penal Code former section 1202.4. The restitution amount included $7,000 for the contingency fee paid to Richards’s…

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.