People v. Czirban CA6
H048989
| Cal. Ct. App. | Apr 12, 2022Background
- In July 2016 Robert Reagan III died operating a bulldozer owned by defendant Ian Czirban while fighting the Soberanes wildfire; a post-accident investigation showed Czirban lacked workers’ compensation insurance.
- WCAB-approved compromise and release (C&R) in April 2020 provided a lump-sum survivors’ benefit (~$310,218.80) but deducted $46,352 for attorney fees (and $1,205.43 for costs), leaving the surviving partner Morgan K. and children with net proceeds; payments were made by SCIF and the UEBTF in 2020.
- Czirban was convicted after a court trial of several business-related crimes, placed on felony probation, and the trial court reserved restitution for later determination.
- While an appeal from the conviction was pending, the trial court (on written submissions) ordered Czirban, as a condition of probation, to pay Morgan $70,667.56 (comprised of $625 wages, $46,352 attorney fees, $1,205.43 costs, and $22,485.13 interest).
- Czirban appealed the restitution order, arguing (1) the attorney-fee deduction from survivors’ benefits violated the Workers’ Compensation Act so no compensable economic loss existed, (2) the restitution condition lacked nexus and was excessive under Lent/§1203.1, and (3) the interest award was legally erroneous and duplicative.
- The Court of Appeal concluded it lacked authority in this appeal to set aside the WCAB order, upheld the restitution award for wages, fees, and costs as a permissible probation condition under §1203.1, but reversed and remanded the interest portion for recalculation under §1202.4(f)(3)(G).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) May the court order restitution for attorney fees that were deducted from WCAB-approved survivors’ benefits? | People/Morgan: The WCAB deduction is part of the victims’ economic loss; trial court may order restitution under §1203.1 to compensate that loss and promote rehabilitation. | Czirban: Labor Code (esp. §4555) prohibits paying attorney fees out of survivor benefits; the WCAB deduction was unlawful, so no compensable loss existed. | Court: Cannot overturn WCAB order in this appeal; presuming WCAB order lawful, restitution for fees as a probation condition under §1203.1 was within the court’s discretion. |
| 2) Was ordering attorney fees as a probation condition unreasonable or beyond Lent limits? | People/Morgan: Restitution as a probation condition is discretionary and may cover losses not strictly tied to the convicted count; it serves rehabilitation and victim compensation. | Czirban: The fees lack a rational nexus to his convictions, are excessive, and do not relate to future criminality (Lent). | Court: Issues were forfeited by failure to timely object on these specific grounds; in any event the award fell within §1203.1 discretion and was not an abuse of that discretion. |
| 3) Did the trial court err by deferring to WCAB’s determination of fee reasonableness without its own lodestar analysis? | People/Morgan: Trial court may consider WCAB’s approval and make its own reasonable-caliber determination; not bound to lodestar. | Czirban: Trial court should have applied WCAB standards or performed an independent lodestar review; it improperly deferred to WCAB. | Court: Defendant forfeited argument about WCAB policy; the trial court independently assessed reasonableness, credited the WCAB finding, and did not abuse its discretion. |
| 4) Was the interest award ($22,485.13) improperly calculated under §1202.4(f)(3)(G)? | People/Morgan: Interest may be applied to restitution principal; trial court calculated simple interest from date of death on the aggregated principal. | Czirban: Interest should accrue only from date the victim actually incurred the economic loss (fees/costs were not incurred by Morgan until 2020); using date of death produces a windfall/duplication. | Court: Reversed the interest award. Interest must be computed separately: wages from date of death; attorney fees/costs from date victim actually incurred the loss or sentencing. Remanded for recalculation. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Martinez, 2 Cal.5th 1093 (distinguishes restitution under §1202.4 from discretionary probation restitution under §1203.1)
- People v. Anderson, 50 Cal.4th 19 (trial court has broad discretion under §1203.1 to order restitution as a probation condition, even for related conduct)
- Lent v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.3d 481 (establishes three-pronged test for invalidating probation conditions)
- Greener v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 6 Cal.4th 1028 (WCAB’s exclusive jurisdiction over workers’ compensation fee disputes and statutory limits on judicial review)
- People v. Brunette, 194 Cal.App.4th 268 (restitution orders that rest on demonstrable legal error constitute abuse of discretion)
- Ford v. City etc., 61 Cal.4th 282 (distinguishes fundamental jurisdiction from acting in excess of statutory authority)
- People v. Williams, 184 Cal.App.4th 142 (statutory interpretation of restitution issues reviewed de novo)