People v. Francis CA1/4
A144176
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- On July 18, 2013 Robert Bednar's residence was burglarized; many items including his van were stolen and some items were later recovered damaged or missing.
- Investigators linked a distinctive purple Nissan Pathfinder (registered to defendant Thomas Francis’s roommate but driven by Francis) to the vicinity at the time of the burglary; stolen property was later found in the Pathfinder and in Francis’s home.
- Francis was charged with residential burglary (§§ 459, 460) and receiving stolen property (§ 496) and pled no contest to receiving stolen property; burglary count was dismissed per plea; court warned restitution would be substantial.
- At restitution hearing victim’s net loss was $9,117 after recoveries and insurance; defense sought to introduce testimony aimed at showing Francis was not one of the burglars (e.g., hair/appearance), which the trial court excluded as irrelevant.
- Trial court concluded Francis’s receipt/possession of stolen goods was transactionally related and a substantial (concurrent) cause of the victim’s loss and ordered full restitution of $9,117; appellate challenge argued exclusion violated due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant convicted only of receiving stolen property may be precluded from proving he was not an actual burglar to avoid full restitution | People: restitution may be ordered for losses that "result" from the defendant’s criminal conduct where conduct is transactionally related; receipt of stolen goods can be a substantial factor producing the loss | Francis: exclusion of evidence that he was not one of the burglars deprived him of due process and should limit restitution to his individual culpability | Court: evidence that he was not one of the burglars was irrelevant because his receipt/possession was transactionally related and a substantial concurrent cause; full restitution was permissible and exclusion did not violate due process |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Carbajal, 10 Cal.4th 1114 (trial court may order restitution reasonably related to the convicted offense)
- People v. Giordano, 42 Cal.4th 644 (victim bears initial burden to prove loss at restitution hearing)
- People v. Holmberg, 195 Cal.App.4th 1310 (receipt of stolen property may be concurrent cause of victim's loss; substantial-factor standard)
- People v. Millard, 175 Cal.App.4th 7 (standard of proof and when comparative-fault principles may apply to restitution)
- People v. Harvey, 25 Cal.3d 754 (dismissed counts may be considered at sentencing/restitution when transactionally related)
- People v. Weatherton, 238 Cal.App.4th 676 (Harvey-related principles allow consideration of dismissed- count facts in restitution when transactionally related)
- People v. Scroggins, 191 Cal.App.3d 502 (distinguishes multiple unrelated victims/crimes where full restitution for unrelated burglaries is improper)