From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Leth

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Jul 18, 2008
No. D052062 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 18, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LENI LETH, Defendant and Appellant. D052062 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division July 18, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCN184606, Daniel B. Goldstein, Judge.

BENKE, Acting P. J.

Leni Leth pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)) and admitted the enhancement for causing great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7). The court sentenced Leth to 365 days in custody (work furlough) and five years' formal probation. As a condition of probation, Leth was ordered to pay a $1,700 fine and $54,097 of the victim's medical expenses in restitution under section 1202.4, subdivision (f).

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

Three years later, victim Linda Nadal signed a $250,000 civil release and settlement agreement with Leth's insurer. The agreement read in part: "It is intended hereto to effect a final resolution and settlement of any and all existing disputes and claims made by RELEASORS [Nadal] against RELEASEES [Leth], regardless of their nature or basis, which arose, may have arisen, or hereinafter can arise by any manner, cause of action or thing whatsoever which occurred prior to the date of the AGREEMENT, including, but not limited to all of those claims which were or could have been asserted in the CIVIL ACTION and any future claims or damages which might arise from the facts, circumstances, conduct, contractual agreement arrangements, or occurrences which were or could have been the subject of said CIVIL ACTION." Leth and Nadal added a condition to the release: "Nothing in this release is intended to waive or limit RELEASORS' rights to pursue their claims against RELEASEES for Criminal Restitution arising out of the accident giving rise to the CIVIL ACTION."

After Nadal signed the agreement, Leth moved to offset her restitution obligation with funds from the insurance settlement. The court denied the motion without prejudice and set a restitution hearing to consider additional medical expenses incurred by Nadal since the original order. The court subsequently denied Leth's motion to offset restitution and increased the amount to $90,000 for additional medical expenses.

Leth appeals, contending the court erred by denying her motion to amend the restitution order. She argues her insurer's payment included Nadal's medical expenses. She claims the court should have offset the restitution amount with insurance funds and discharged the obligation. We affirm the judgment.

FACTS

On September 20, 2004, Leth lost control of the van she was driving. Leth's van crashed into an oncoming car driven by Nadal. Nadal suffered serious head, eye and jaw injuries. Leth had been driving with a blood alcohol content of .097 percent.

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends the court erred by denying her motion to offset the restitution amount with settlement funds. She claims the civil settlement and release agreement covered all losses arising from the September 20, 2004, accident.

Victims of crime in California have a constitutional and statutory right to receive full restitution directly from a defendant for economic loss suffered as a result of the defendant' criminal conduct. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b); § 1202.4, subd. (f); People v. Hamilton (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 932, 939.) In every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant's conduct, the court shall require the defendant make restitution to the victim in an amount determined by the court. (§ 1202.4, subd. (f).)

Economic loss under section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3), includes medical expenses, but not pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is considered a non-economic loss. (§ 1202.4, subd. (f).) Restitution can only be ordered to reimburse economic loss. (People v. Fulton (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 876, 884.) A restitution order must sufficiently reimburse the victim for every determined economic loss incurred as a result of the defendant's criminal conduct. (People v. Rowland (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1745, 1751.)

A settlement and release of liability agreement between a victim and the defendant's insurer cannot relieve the defendant of his or her restitution obligation. (People v. Bernal (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 155, 162.) The settlement agreement may reflect a victim's willingness to accept the amount paid as satisfaction for all civil liability, but it does not reflect the willingness of the People to accept the sum in satisfaction of the rehabilitative and deterrent debt to society. (Ibid.) Despite this, settlement payments made to a victim must be offset against the restitution obligation to the extent those payments are for items of loss included in the restitution order. (Id. at p. 168.)

Appellant relies on People v. Bernal, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th 155 to argue that her insurer's civil settlement payment must offset the criminal restitution obligation. However, under Bernal, offsets are only appropriate to the extent that those payments are for items of loss included in the restitution order. (Id. at p. 168.) Before granting an offset, the court must determine whether payments made by a defendant's insurer were for economic losses covered by the restitution order. (People v. Jennings (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 42, 55.)

The court rejected appellant's argument that the $250,000 insurance settlement was intended to cover both Nadal's economic and non-economic losses. Instead, the court agreed with Nadal that the settlement excluded economic losses: "[T]he 250 - [$250,000 insurance settlement] does not prejudice the victim from pursuing restitution. . . . [T]hat means the 250 - was allocated for pain and suffering and whatever the court in its discretion orders as restitution will be in addition to the 250 -." We agree.

The following portion of the civil settlement and release agreement specifically preserved Nadal's right to pursue full restitution from appellant: "Nothing in this release is intended to waive or limit RELEASORS' rights to pursue their claim against RELEASEES' for Criminal Restitution arising out of the accident giving rise to the CIVIL ACTION." Safeguarding Nadal's right to seek full restitution shows the parties did not intend the civil settlement to reduce appellant's criminal restitution obligation. Rather, appellant's insurer and Nadal intended to settle all non-economic claims for $250,000, while preserving Nadal's right to seek reimbursement for economic damages directly from appellant. The parties' intent in a release is controlling. (McCall v. Four Star Music Co. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1400; see Barnum v. Cochrane (1903) 139 Cal. 494, 495.) Because the insurance payment was not for economic losses covered by the restitution order, there is no basis for an offset. (People v. Bernal, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 168; People v. Jennings, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 55.)

This court's decision in People v. Jennings, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th 42, is not inconsistent with this conclusion. Like here, the parties' in Jennings defined the extent to which the defendant's insurer's payment was for loss included in the restitution order. The parties allocated 15 percent of a civil settlement toward medical expenses (economic losses), and 85 percent toward pain and suffering (non-economic losses). (Id. at p. 47.) Only the 15 percent portion of the victim's civil settlement dedicated to economic losses was used to offset the restitution amount. (Id. at p. 58.) Here, none of the $250,000 settlement was allocated toward economic damages. There is no offset for the economic losses in the restitution order.

Our holding ensures the primary purpose of restitution is served; the victim is fully reimbursed. (People v. Bernal, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 168 .) Nadal is fully compensated for her economic losses without the court deducting that amount from her non-economic loss award. Accepting appellant's argument that the agreement covered economic and non-economic loss would mean "as the restitution order goes up because of ongoing medical expenses, her pain and suffering recovery goes down." Appellant's construction of the agreement undermines the Legislature's goal of requiring defendants to fully reimburse victims.

Our holding also protects the restitution law's rehabilitative and deterrent objectives. (People v. Moser (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 130, 135.) Appellant is prevented from escaping criminal responsibility for restitution by virtue of her insurance company paying the amount owed through an offset. The rehabilitative effect of the law is enforced because appellant must confront through restitution the harm her actions have caused. (Id. at pp. 135-136.) Similarly, the direct relationship between the harm and the punishment gives restitution the desired deterrent effect. (Ibid.) Construing the agreement to exclude an offset preserves the sentencing court's power and obligation under section 1202.4, subdivision (f), to order direct restitution to victims.

Appellant argues forcing her to pay the entire restitution obligation with no credit for the insurance payment would result in a windfall to the victim. She contends restitution would duplicate items already reimbursed by the insurance carrier. (People v. Bernal, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 167). However, Nadal's non-economic damages are compensated by the insurance settlement, while the restitution amount covers economic damages. The victim is not "double dipping" as appellant argues. Rather, her pain and suffering and medical expenses are each compensated once.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: NARES, J., HALLER, J.


Summaries of

People v. Leth

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Jul 18, 2008
No. D052062 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 18, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Leth

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LENI LETH, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

Date published: Jul 18, 2008

Citations

No. D052062 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 18, 2008)