Saint-Amans

People v. Saint-Amans

Good Law
131 Cal. App. 4th 1076·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1236·2005 Daily Journal DAR 9601·32 Cal. Rptr. 3d 518·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7041
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 18, 2005No. A105413California3,709 words

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.

On January 24, 2002, appellant pleaded guilty to…

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.