People v. Pangan
213 Cal. App. 4th 574
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Pangan was convicted of causing great bodily injury while driving under the influence; Muniz sought restitution for several losses.
- Muniz claimed $8,390.67 for unpaid medical bills, $12,000 for a removed vehicle, $15,000 for lost prize fight earnings, and $246.50 per month in reduced pension benefits.
- The trial court adopted a tentative restitution amount and then issued an order totaling $79,382.67, including a $70,992.30 pension loss after deducting 2009–2010 eligibility.
- The court did not account for the time value of money in converting a future stream of $246.50 monthly payments into a lump-sum equivalent.
- Defense counsel did not object at the restitution hearing, and the court declined to award the vehicle loss or prize-money losses as too speculative.
- The Court of Appeal reversed for a new hearing to include present-value calculations; the new hearing would not provide a jury trial for the restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the time value of money must be accounted for in restitution | Muniz's loss must be discounted to present value per Giordano and Chappelone. | No argument presented that requires present-value discounting at the restitution stage. | Yes; abuse of discretion to ignore time value of money. |
| Whether ineffective assistance of counsel occurred for failure to raise time-value | Counsel should have argued discounting; omission prejudiced Muniz. | Waiver due to failure to object; no ineffective assistance. | Ineffective assistance; remand for recalculation. |
| Whether jury trial is required for the restitution remand | Southern Union-Apprendi-Blakely require jury finding for restitution calculations. | Restitution is civil, not criminal punishment; no jury right. | No jury trial right on remand for restitution calculation. |
| Scope and method of remand for present-value calculation | Discount rate and present-value method must be determined anew to ensure accurate loss. | Not specified; procedural process to be determined on remand. | Remand for recalculation to account for time value of money; method to be determined. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Giordano, 42 Cal.4th 644 (Cal. 2007) (addressed future economic losses and need for rational calculation)
- Chappelone, 183 Cal.App.4th 1159 (Cal. App. 2010) (discounting inventory to reflect actual economic value; present-value concepts)
- Canavin v. Pacific Southwest Airlines, 148 Cal.App.3d 512 (Cal. App. 1983) (discounting future payments to present value)
- Roden v. AmerisourceBergen Corp., 186 Cal.App.4th 620 (Cal. App. 2010) (time value of money; actuarial concepts in litigation)
- Salgado v. County of Los Angeles, 19 Cal.4th 629 (Cal. 1998) (recognition of time value of money in awards)
- Conkright v. Frommert, 559 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2010) (time value of money in pension distributions (federal law context))
- Millard, 175 Cal.App.4th 7 (Cal. App. 2009) (purpose of restitution hearings; civil remedy for economic losses)
- Harvest, 84 Cal.App.4th 641 (Cal. App. 2000) (restitution context; emphasis on civil nature of remedy)