Opinion
D072517
06-05-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOAQUIN ADAME, Defendant and Appellant.
Daniel J. Kessler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Allison V. Acosta, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. SCN342707) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Blaine K. Bowman, Judge. Affirmed as modified with directions. Daniel J. Kessler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Allison V. Acosta, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In this case the appellant was convicted of multiple counts of child molestation and sentenced to term of 205 years to life in prison. This appeal does not challenge the conviction, the admissibility or sufficiency of the evidence or the sentence. The only issue raised on this appeal deals with a part of the restitution order which requires appellant to pay $2,000 for relocation costs of the victims' family because appellant's son and other family members harassed the victims' family members. No evidence was offered in the trial court to implicate appellant in any manner in the victims' decision to move away. Thus, as we will discuss there is not sufficient causal connection between appellant's criminal conduct and the events which induced the victims' family to move from their home. Accordingly, we will modify the restitution order to strike the $2,000 reimbursement for moving costs. We will not recite the sordid facts of the offenses here because they are irrelevant to the issue we address.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A jury convicted Joaquin Adame of nine counts of child molestation involving three victims in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1), and found true special allegations under section 667.61, subdivisions (d)(2), (b), (c), (e), and (j)(2). Adame was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 205 years to life. The court ordered Adame to reimburse the Victim Compensation Board in the amount of $3,210. (§ 1202.4, subd. (f).)
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. --------
Adame appeals contending the court erred in ordering $2,000 of the reimbursement for the costs to the victims' family to move away due to alleged actions of Adame's family after his arrest. We will find there is no direct causation of Adame's criminal conduct and the events leading to the family decision to move away. Therefore, the court erred in imposing an order for restitution not directly caused by the defendant's behavior.
DISCUSSION
The California Constitution provides that "[i]t is the unequivocal intention of the People of the State of California that all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to seek and secure restitution from the persons convicted of the crimes causing the losses they suffer." (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b)(13(A).) Section 1202.4 codifies this constitutional provision for defendants sentenced to serve prison terms. Subdivision (a)(1) of section 1202.4 states: "It is the intent of the legislature that a victim of crime who incurs an economic loss as a result of the commission of a crime shall receive restitution directly from a defendant convicted of that crime." Subdivision (f) of section 1202.4 also provides: "[I]n every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant's conduct, the court shall require that the defendant make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount established by court order, based on the amount of the loss claimed by the victim or victims or any other showing to the court." (Italics added.) " 'To the extent possible,' direct victim restitution is to be ordered in an amount 'sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant's criminal conduct.' " (People v. Martinez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1093, 1098 (Martinez), quoting section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3).) "Application of these provisions depends on the relationship between the victim's loss and the defendant's crime." (Martinez, supra, at p. 1098.)
We generally review restitution awards under the abuse of discretion standard. (People v. Fortune (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 790, 794.) A trial court has broad discretion in making restitution orders. Where a defendant is sentenced to prison, an award for economic losses must be "incurred as a result of the defendant's criminal conduct." (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)(3); Martinez, supra, 2 Cal.5th at pp. 1101-1102.) Where the trial court bases the order in whole or in part upon an error of law, the court abuses its discretion. (People v. Woods (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1049.)
In Martinez, supra, 2 Cal.5th at page 1098, the court addressed restitution for a defendant convicted of felony hit and run (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a)). The trial court ordered the defendant to pay restitution for the victim's injuries from the accident. The court held that the criminal conduct of the defendant occurred after the accident and was not the cause of the victim's losses. Thus, the court held the restitution order was not proper. (Martinez, supra, at p. 1098.)
In the present case, no evidence was presented to the trial court to implicate Adame in the harassing conduct which caused the victims' family to leave their home. The only facts presented were allegations that Adame's son and other family members harassed the victims after Adame was arrested. There was no evidence that Adame was involved in any way in the harassing conduct of others. The trial court did not find Adame's criminal conduct was a direct cause of the losses. The only causal connection of the criminal conduct of Adame and the victims' losses would spring from the reasoning: Adame committed crimes against the victims; Adame was arrested for such behavior; Adame's family retaliated against the victims after his arrest; therefore, Adame's criminal conduct is a cause of the victims' losses. Such reasoning reduces the concept of causation to an almost philosophical idea.
There is no evidence in this case that Adame did anything to cause the harassment, nor does third party behavior retaliating against the victims for reporting the crimes demonstrate the defendant's criminal conduct was a direct cause of the losses. Where the defendant is sentenced to prison, as opposed to placement on probation, the causation must be more direct than that presented here. (Martinez, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1098.)
DISPOSITION
The restitution order is modified to reduce the amount by $2,000. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment accordingly and to forward the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J. BENKE, J.