People v. Holmberg
195 Cal. App. 4th 1310
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Holmberg was convicted by plea of concealing stolen property and using an altered, stolen or counterfeit access card; sentencing imposed two years concurrent with a total of 733 days’ custody credits deemed served.
- Restitution was awarded to Stonecrest for various losses and to PAC for a recovered hard drive; overall restitution totaled $18,182 before modification.
- The restitution hearing addressed whether losses stemmed from concealment of property versus burglary/theft, and whether there was a causal link to Holmberg’s conduct.
- Evidence showed Holmberg possessed stolen Stonecrest items the day of the burglary, helped conceal and/or sell some items, and used stolen cards with Henderson; some items were damaged or lost due to burglary independent of concealment.
- The trial court modified the restitution award after considering causation, ultimately reducing Stonecrest’s award to $18,052 and leaving PAC’s $110 intact, with an additional strike of $20 for cables on appeal.
- On appeal, Holmberg challenged the restitution amounts, the sufficiency of evidence for specific items, and the applicability of credits under section 4019.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the restitution award causally connected to Holmberg’s conduct? | Holmberg contends damages stem from burglary, not concealment. | Holmberg argues no substantial causal link between concealment and losses. | Yes; Holmberg’s concealment was a substantial, concurrent cause warranting restitution. |
| Was there sufficient evidence to support restitution for the CardScan scanner and cables? | Stonecrest and the prosecutor supported the items as Stonecrest property. | Holmberg asserts lack of linking evidence and owner testimony for those items. | CardScan scanner supported; cables insufficient evidence, struck. |
| Did the trial court properly tailor the restitution award to losses caused by Holmberg’s conduct? | Restitution should reflect losses caused by concealment of the property. | Costs stemming from burglary/initial theft should be excluded. | Yes; award limited to losses caused by Holmberg’s concealment, with proper reductions. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Giordano, 42 Cal.4th 644 (Cal. 2007) (establishes restitution rights under Prop. 8 and §1202.4)
- People v. Gemelli, 161 Cal.App.4th 1539 (Cal. App. 2008) (preponderance standard for restitution hearings; use of probation report as prima facie evidence)
- People v. Foster, 14 Cal.App.4th 939 (Cal. App. 1993) (probation reports may inform restitution determinations)
- People v. Keichler, 129 Cal.App.4th 1039 (Cal. App. 2005) (burden on defendant to challenge stated loss; rebuttable prima facie evidence rule)
- People v. Jones, 187 Cal.App.4th 418 (Cal. App. 2010) (applies tort causation, including substantial factor test, to restitution)
- Scroggins v. People, 191 Cal.App.3d 502 (Cal. App. 1987) (distinguishes where defendant not liable for unrelated losses; restitution must be tied to defendant’s conduct)
- Doupnik v. General Motors Corp., 225 Cal.App.3d 849 (Cal. App. 1990) (supports comparative fault analysis in causation)
- Mitchell v. Gonzales, 54 Cal.3d 1041 (Cal. 1991) (adopts substantial factor approach to proximate cause)