Phelps

People v. Phelps

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 15·41 Cal. App. 4th 946·48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 855·96 Daily Journal DAR 405·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 210
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 5, 1996G016606California1,815 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wallin, J.

John E. Phelps appeals his conviction for hit and run causing injury, contending the trial court erred by ordering restitution for future medical expenses. We affirm.

Phelps crashed the car he had stolen into a station wagon in which seven-year-old Trent McGee was riding, paralyzing Trent from the neck down. At sentencing on the hit-and-run conviction, the trial court ordered restitution pursuant to Government Code section 13967 in the amount of $150,000, $29,000 for past medical expenses and $121,000 for future medical expenses.

Phelps argues the plain language of section 13967 prohibits the court from ordering restitution for future medical expenses. The statute provides, in pertinent part: “In cases in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s criminal conduct, ... the court shall order restitution to be paid to the victim. . . . [Restitution shall be imposed in the amount of the losses, as determined. The court shall order full restitution unless it finds clear and compelling reasons for not doing so, and states them on the record. . . . [^D Restitution ordered pursuant to this subdivision shall, to the extent possible, be of a dollar…

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.