Brunette

People v. Brunette

Good Law
124 Cal. Rptr. 3d 521·194 Cal. App. 4th 268·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 432
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 13, 2011No. H035370California6,686 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Duffy, J.

A jury convicted Robert Christopher Brunette, the defendant herein, of animal cruelty and neglect. The trial court ordered him to pay a large restitution amount to the animal welfare agency that had to arrange care for the dogs it rescued. This appeal requires us to consider whether the trial court erred in not reducing the award to account for the agency’s putative comparative negligence in not abating the condition sooner, and abused its discretion by not setting off revenues the agency may have received from adopting out some of the dogs.

We will affirm the judgment except for the trial court’s imposition of an interest charge on the restitution award.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A jury convicted defendant of two felony counts of animal cruelty (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (b)), 1 four misdemeanor counts of providing unfit animal *272 living conditions (§ 597t), and three misdemeanor counts of animal neglect (§ 597.1, subd. (a)), following which the trial court convicted him of two violations of Santa Cruz County animal ordinances, offenses that constituted infractions. The court sentenced defendant to a year in county jail on the misdemeanors and five years’ formal probation…

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.