People v. Lockwood
214 Cal. App. 4th 91
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant Lockwood was convicted of corporal injury to a cohabitant and possession of a firearm by a felon, and was ordered to pay restitution to the Restitution Fund for victim-related costs.
- The restitution amount was $20,900.37, based on Board reimbursements for the victim’s medical and mental health expenses.
- Lockwood subpoenaed records from the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (Board) to challenge the amount and its link to his conduct.
- California Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(4) creates a presumption that Board assistance is a direct result of the defendant’s conduct, with specific provisions for producing and reviewing Board records.
- The trial court committed error by not releasing the Board records to Lockwood for in camera review, despite Lockwood’s evidence tending to rebut the presumption.
- The Board’s records, including hospital and treatment documents, showed the victim’s November 2009 hospitalization and related treatment were linked to defendant’s conduct, not solely to other domestic violence events.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 1202.4(f)(4) require releasing Board records to rebut the presumption? | People argues records should be released only after rebuttal evidence; the court erred. | Lockwood contends records should be released for rebuttal. | Yes; records must be released after rebuttal evidence is offered. |
| What is the effect of the presumption under (f)(4) on burdens of proof vs production? | People argues presumption affects burden of production. | Lockwood argues presumption affects burden of proof. | Presumption affects the burden of proof; records release follows after rebuttal evidence. |
| Was the restitution error harmless given the Board records' content? | People asserts error no prejudice since presumption existed. | Lockwood asserts records would show non-causation. | Harmless error; records show the Board payments were linked to defendant’s conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Holmberg, 195 Cal.App.4th 1310 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (restitution hearing evidentiary standards; probative value of probation reports)
- People v. Jones, 187 Cal.App.4th 418 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (definition of direct causation under (f)(4)(A))
- People v. Dubon, 90 Cal.App.4th 944 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (presumptions affecting burden of proof vs production)