People v. Brunette
194 Cal. App. 4th 268
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Brunette was convicted of two felony animal cruelty counts, four misdemeanor unfit living-conditions counts, and three misdemeanor animal neglect counts; restitution of $127,331.33 was ordered to the Animal Services Authority and challenged on comparative-fault and adoption-fee-offset theories.
- Restitution was calculated under Penal Code sections 597(f)(1) and 597.1(k); the court declined to reduce for comparative fault or to offset adoption fees; the judgment included an interest charge that was later challenged.
- The Animal Services Authority rescued dozens of dogs from Brunette’s remote forest property after a 2008 visit; conditions were described as severe and many dogs were starving, infested, or dying.
- Brunette argued that authorities’ prior 2005 failure to remediate similar conditions supported a Millard-style comparative-fault reduction, while the People opposed applying Millard due to the statute difference and the nature of the victims.
- The appellate court held there was no error in declining comparative-fault treatment or offsetting adoption fees, and reversed only to the extent of invalidating the interest on restitution; the remainder of the restitution decision was affirmed.
- The trial court’s procedures and the statutory framework were reviewed, including the non-direct-victim status of the Animal Services Authority under 1202.4, and the court emphasized broad discretion in setting restitution but required lawful application of the statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution can be reduced under comparative fault. | Brunette | Brunette | Not applicable; no reduction under §597(f)(1) |
| Whether adoption-fee revenues can offset restitution. | Brunette | Brunette | No offset; adoption-revenue offset not supported by record or law |
| Whether section 1202.4 direct-victim restitution applies to the Animal Services Authority. | People | Brunette | Animal Services Authority not a direct victim under 1202.4 |
| Whether the court could impose interest on restitution under law. | People | Brunette | Interest awarded under 1202.4 overturned; reversed to that extent |
| Whether the court properly exercised discretion in setting restitution without Millard-type apportionment. | People conflict with Millard; animals are not direct victims | Brunette; Millard should apply | Millard distinguishable; no comparative fault here; decision affirmed except for interest |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Millard, 175 Cal.App.4th 7 (Cal.App.4th 2009) (restitution may be reduced by comparative fault in certain human-victim scenarios; distinguishable here)
- People v. Baker, 126 Cal.App.4th 463 (Cal.App.4th 2005) (broad discretion in fixing restitution; need rational basis to support amount)
- People v. Duong, 180 Cal.App.4th 1533 (Cal.App.4th 2010) (legality of restitution awards under statutes reviewed de novo when legal basis challenged)
- People v. Williams, 184 Cal.App.4th 142 (Cal.App.4th 2010) (independent review of restitution legality when statutorily challenged)
- People v. Slattery, 167 Cal.App.4th 1091 (Cal.App.4th 2008) (hospital-not-direct-victim restitution under 1202.4)
- People v. Kunitz, 122 Cal.App.4th 652 (Cal.App.4th 2004) (noneconomic considerations in restitution context)