Penal Code Section 1202.4(f)(3)(H) Was Basis For Fees As Restitutio
Walker v. Appellate Division of the Los Angeles County Superior Court (People), Case No. B208100 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 22, 2017) (published) is a case where a criminal defendant pled no contest to a misdemeanor cost of contracting without a contractor’s license, ordered by the lower court to pay restitution of some losses but not ordered to pay other losses or attorney’s fees by the person who was the recipient of the unlicensed contractor services. The Appellate Division of the superior court disagreed, ordering restitution of all “economic losses” as well as attorney’s fees incurred by the “victim” in having to defend against criminal defendant’s earlier civil lawsuit and in having to bring a cross-claim to obtain disgorgement of prior payments to unlicensed contractor. The 2/5 DCA then refused to grant a mandate petition, but the California Supreme Court transferred back to the 2/5 DCA with an OSC to show why at least one component of the full restitution order should not be changed. Upon the state supreme court’s transfer back, the 2/5 DCA panel found that the trial court was correct to not grant one component of the restitution order, with that aspect drawing a 2-1 split in thinking. However, all justices agreed that the attorney’s fees component in the criminal restitution order was justified under Penal Code section 1202.4(f)(3)(H), which provides “[t]o the extent possible, the restitution order shall be prepared by the sentencing court, shall identify each victim and each loss to which it pertains, and shall be of a dollar amount that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct, including, but not limited to, all of the following: (H) Actual and reasonable attorney’s fees and other costs of collection accrued by a private entity on behalf of the victim.”
Comments