People v. Potter CA4/2

DISCUSSION

A. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE RESTITUTION

ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF THE SETTLEMENT REACHED IN THE

CIVIL ACTION

On appeal, the People contend that “the trial court abused its discretion when it

imposed restitution in the amount [defendant] had previously paid Squires to settle their

civil action and not in the amount that [defendant] actually embezzled from Squires.”

1. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In the People’s memorandum on restitution, the People requested $6,300,828.28 in

restitution to repay the money stolen by defendant from Squires. The total represented

the amount embezzled by defendant, $5,788,517.84, plus interest calculated from the date

of sentencing to the date of filing of the memorandum. Relying on People v. Bernal

(2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 155 (Bernal), the People argued that “a partial civil settlement is

not a substitute for restitution in a criminal proceeding,” and that “a release by a victim

cannot waive the People’s right to have a defendant pay restitution ordered as part of his

sentence.”

In his opposition, defendant did not contest that he had embezzled $5,788,517.

from Squires. However, defendant argued that Squires…