People v. Salas
9 Cal. App. 5th 736
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Steven Paul Salas pleaded no contest to one count of domestic violence (§ 273.5(a)) after an incident in which he allegedly inflicted great bodily injury on his wife; he was sentenced to three years in prison.
- At sentencing the victim testified she received threats from Salas and spent $14,055.48 on new residential security (security windows and an ADT alarm) because she feared for her safety.
- At a restitution hearing Salas conceded $3,095.59 in specific economic losses but disputed the $14,055.48 for residential security, arguing § 1202.4(f)(3)(J) permits such restitution only when the defendant was convicted of a "violent felony" as defined in § 667.5(c).
- The trial court ordered total victim restitution of $17,194.45, including the residential security expenses, reasoning the victim suffered great bodily injury.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal reviewed whether § 1202.4(f)(3)(J) restricts awards for residential security to crimes that qualify as violent felonies under § 667.5(c), and whether Salas’ conviction satisfied that requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1202.4(f)(3)(J) authorizes restitution for residential security expenses when the defendant was not convicted of a "violent felony" as defined in § 667.5(c). | People: § 1202.4(f)(3) is illustrative and restitution may be awarded broadly for expenses related to the defendant's conduct. | Salas: § 1202.4(f)(3)(J) expressly limits residential security restitution to expenses "incurred related to a violent felony" as defined in § 667.5(c); he was not convicted of such a felony. | The court held § 1202.4(f)(3)(J) is limited to expenses related to violent felonies defined by § 667.5(c); because Salas was not convicted of a § 667.5(c) violent felony the residential security awards must be stricken. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Robles, 23 Cal.4th 1106 (2000) (legislative history may resolve ambiguous statutory language)
- City of San Jose v. Sharma, 5 Cal.App.5th 123 (2016) (specific statutory language controls over general policy arguments)
- Estate of Simpson, 43 Cal.2d 594 (1954) (revisions in statutory wording are presumed deliberate)
- People v. Williams, 184 Cal.App.4th 142 (2010) (statutory interpretation questions reviewed de novo)
- In re Greg F., 55 Cal.4th 393 (2012) (courts avoid constructions producing absurd consequences)
- People v. Rubalcava, 23 Cal.4th 322 (2000) (courts should not rewrite legislation to reflect judicial policy preferences)