People v. Miranda CA1/4, A169230

Daniel Valencia Miranda pled guilty to one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 (Penal Code § 269(a)(3)).
The abuse involved ongoing sexual assaults on an 8-year-old girl, who was the daughter of Miranda’s partner, occurring approximately ten times.
Miranda threatened the child with harm to her mother if she disclosed the abuse.
After his confession, Miranda was sentenced to 15 years to life in state prison.
The trial court ordered Miranda to pay $200,000 in noneconomic restitution to the victim based on the impact statements and the mother's testimony regarding the child's ongoing emotional and psychological trauma.
Miranda appealed the restitution order, arguing it was unsupported by substantial evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported a $200,000 noneconomic restitution award for the victim of child sexual abuse	Substantial evidence showed lasting trauma justifying the amount; impact statements substantiated harm.	Restitution was unsupported; evidence insufficient for such noneconomic damages.	Restitution order affirmed; evidence sufficient and amount not shocking to conscience.

In re Johnny M., 100 Cal.App.4th 1128 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (standard for appellate review of restitution orders is abuse of discretion)
People v. Jennings, 128 Cal.App.4th 42 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (restitution order based on legal error is an abuse of discretion)
People v. Millard, 175 Cal.App.4th 7 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (restitution order upheld if supported by substantial evidence)
People v. Smith, 198 Cal.App.4th 415 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (different standards apply to noneconomic damages in restitution)
People v. Brunette, 194 Cal.App.4th 268 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (broad discretion for trial courts regarding information considered at restitution hearings)
People v. McCarthy, 244 Cal.App.4th 1096 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (child sexual abuse commonly results in long-term psychological harm)