Koontzy

People v. Koontzy

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 23, 2024A167703ACalifornia3,794 words

Opinion

Opinion

Simons, J.

BACKGROUND

In June 2017, the Napa County District Attorney filed a criminal complaint charging appellant with fleeing the scene of an injury accident (Veh. Code § 20001, subd. (a); count one) and with reckless driving (Veh. Code § 23103, subd. (a); count two).3 In November 2017, pursuant to an agreement, appellant pleaded no contest to count one and count two was dismissed. She agreed to pay “full

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 The Supreme Court granted review in McCune to consider the

question, “Did the trial court exceed its jurisdiction by setting the amount of victim restitution after terminating defendant’s probation pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 1950 (Stats. 2020, ch. 328)?” (McCune, supra, S276303.)

3 A detailed summary of the underlying offense is not necessary to

resolve the issue on appeal. In brief, according to summaries in a probation report and respondent’s restitution brief below, the victim was standing on the side of a road speaking to another person when she was struck by the side view mirror of appellant’s car as appellant drove by. Appellant did not stop and was later detained. The victim had injuries to her abdomen and…

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.