People v. Taylor
197 Cal. App. 4th 757
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Taylor caused a head-on collision by crossing a double yellow line and fled the scene; Bailey sustained arm injuries and his car was totaled.
- Taylor pled no contest to hit-and-run causing injury and admitted a strike; he also entered a no contest plea in another case.
- At sentencing, the court imposed six years, suspended proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051, and committed Taylor to CRC, but later determined CRC inapplicable and reinstated the original sentence.
- At restitution, the trial court ordered $44,554.83 to Bailey, including $8,333.33 for attorney fees.
- Bailey incurred an $8,333.33 contingency fee (33 1/3% of his settlement) due to the accident; the fee was included in restitution.
- Taylor challenged the award of contingency-fee restitution, arguing it should be determined under a lodestar analysis for reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contingency-fee restitution requires a lodestar analysis | Taylor argues fees must be reasonableness-tested via lodestar. | Taylor contends lodestar is required to deem fees reasonable. | Restoration for contingency fees permitted without lodestar analysis. |
| Whether presentence credits were correctly calculated | Taylor seeks more credits for conduct and time served. | Taylor challenges calculation as already correct. | Judgment modified to grant 670 days of conduct credits; affirmed as modified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Millard, 175 Cal.App.4th 7 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2009) (contingency-fee restitution questioned; lodestar required by Millard)
- Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 112 (Cal. 2000) (lodestar method appropriate in some fee-shifting statutes; not blanket rule)
- Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 25 (Cal. 1977) (foundation for fee-shifting and public-benefit considerations)
- Serrano v. Unruh, 32 Cal.3d 621 (Cal. 1982) (further development of Serrano principles on fees)
- People v. Jennings, 128 Cal.App.4th 42 (Cal. App. 2005) (restitution aims to fully reimburse victim's economic losses)
- In re Johnny M., 100 Cal.App.4th 1128 (Cal. App. 2002) (standard for assessing economic losses in restitution)