Saint-Amans
People v. Saint-Amans
Opinion
lead Opinion
Kline, J.
Introduction
After Daniel John Saint-Amans (appellant) pleaded guilty to one count of commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), 1 the trial court ordered appellant to pay $10,000 restitution to Washington Mutual Bank (the bank) pursuant to section 1202.4. On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred by ordering restitution to an entity that was not a “direct victim” of the crime. (§ 1202.4, subd. (k)(2).) We shall affirm the restitution order.
Facts and Procedural Background 2
Appellant opened a bank account at the bank’s Terra Linda branch on October 25, 2001. The same day, a joint account was opened by phone banking under the names of William Dillon and appellant. Through a series of transactions, $35,000 was transferred from Dillon’s account to the joint account, and then from the joint account to appellant’s individual account. Appellant successfully withdrew $15,000 of this money. Bank employees became suspicious on May 30, 2001, when appellant requested to withdraw *1080 $20,000 cash at the bank’s Corte Madera branch. On May 31, 2001, the bank called the Twin Cities police, leading to appellant’s arrest.