225 Cal. App. 4th 306
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Wasbotten was convicted by jury of four counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code §211).
- She challenges the court-ordered restitution amounts imposed at sentencing.
- Probation report listed losses: victim1 $1,110; victim3 $40; victim4 $100; victim2 had no response; restitution jurisdiction retained.
- At sentencing, court ordered $1,110 to victim1, $40 to victim3, and $100 to victim4; no objections were filed.
- Defendant argues Apprendi/Blakely/Southern Union require jury-determined value for restitution.
- Court adopts the analysis in People v. Pangan and holds restitution is not punishment; direct victim restitution is a civil remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Apprendi apply to restitution determinations? | Wasbotten contends jury must determine restitution value. | People argues restitution is civil, not punishment; jury not required for amount. | No; Apprendi does not apply to direct victim restitution. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Pangan, 213 Cal.App.4th 574 (Cal.App.4th 2013) (restitution not punishment; Apprendi not applicable)
- United States v. Day, 700 F.3d 713 (4th Cir. 2012) (Apprendi does not govern restitution)
- United States v. Wolfe, 701 F.3d 1206 (7th Cir. 2012) (restitution not punishment; Apprendi not applicable)
- Behrman, 235 F.3d 1049 (7th Cir. 2000) (direct victim restitution civil remedy)
- Millard, 175 Cal.App.4th 27 (Cal.App.4th 2009) (restitution not punitive)
- Chappelone, 183 Cal.App.4th 1159 (Cal.App.4th 2010) (federal cases on restitution as civil remedy)
- Southern Union Co. v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2344 (2012) (restitution not punishment; not applying Apprendi)
- People v. Villalobos, 54 Cal.4th 177 (Cal. 2012) (restitution as civil remedy; not punishment)