People v. Hannon, 5 Cal. App. 5th 94

Background

In 2006 Barber entrusted $27,500.32 to defendant Eugene Hannon (an attorney) to fund a college trust for his children; funds were later misappropriated. Hannon was disbarred and pled no contest in 2013 to misdemeanor theft by embezzlement; probation and restitution to be determined were imposed.
At a 2015 restitution hearing the trial court ordered $40,800 restitution to victim Dr. Rose Magno: $25,000 attorney’s fees, $15,000 lost wages, and $800 mileage. Part of the loss had been recovered in an earlier civil settlement.
Appellant Hannon appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for the attorney‑fees, lost‑wages, and mileage awards and asserting ineffective assistance of counsel at the restitution hearing.
During the appeal the victim requested and the Court of Appeal allowed her to file a victim impact statement under Marsy’s Law (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28); the statement sought additional restitution items (interest, more fees, lost production, mileage) and raised facts not in the trial record.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the restitution order and held that Marsy’s Law entitles a victim to submit a victim impact statement on appeal but does not permit the victim to raise new legal issues or rely on facts outside the trial record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People/Victim)	Defendant's Argument (Hannon)	Held
1) Award of $25,000 for attorney’s fees	Fee award was supported by the record and trial court’s review of voluminous filings and in‑chambers consultation with counsel	Award unsupported; court should have used lodestar method and victim failed to produce itemized, segregated, unredacted billing showing hours attributable to trust issue	Affirmed. Lodestar not mandatory; court’s method was within discretion and defendant failed to show award exceeded permissible loss
2) $15,000 lost wages	Court reasonably approximated hourly rate and hours lost based on tax return, testimony, and hearings identified in chambers	Award unsupported; improperly used gross revenues rather than net income and did not specify hearings/hours	Affirmed. Court’s approximations were rational; adjustment above simple multiplication reasonable to account for preparation/blocked time
3) $800 mileage reimbursement	Travel is recoverable as an economic loss under §1202.4; court relied on hearings identified in chambers	Error for failing to itemize and specify hearings and mileage calculation	Affirmed. Mileage award permissible; reliance on in‑chambers list was not shown to be erroneous on the silent record
4) Victim’s right to file impact statement on appeal under Marsy’s Law	Victim entitled to be "heard" on appellate matters affecting her restitution right; may submit statement for court consideration	Victim may not raise new issues or facts not presented below; appellate rules limit scope	Held: Victim has a constitutional right to file an impact statement on appeal, but may not introduce new legal issues or facts outside the trial record; normal appellate rules apply

Key Cases Cited

People v. Millard, 175 Cal.App.4th 7 (Cal. Ct. App.) (lodestar approach discussed for attorney fees in restitution context)
Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal.) (lodestar method not mandated universally; statute‑specific analysis)
People v. Giordano, 42 Cal.4th 644 (Cal.) (trial court must state calculation method but award reviewed for abuse of discretion)
People v. Keichler, 129 Cal.App.4th 1039 (Cal. Ct. App.) (broad reading of economic losses recoverable under §1202.4)
Lewis v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.4th 1232 (Cal.) (interpretation of what it means to be "heard")
In re Zeth S., 31 Cal.4th 396 (Cal.) (appellate courts generally consider only the trial record)
People v. Dalvito, 56 Cal.App.4th 557 (Cal. Ct. App.) (review for factual/rational basis for restitution award)
People v. Taylor, 197 Cal.App.4th 757 (Cal. Ct. App.) (criticizing a rigid lodestar‑only approach in restitution context)
In re Vicks, 56 Cal.4th 274 (Cal.) (discussing Marsy’s Law and victims’ due process interests)