gno.law

People v. Leon

California Court of Appeal · D043917 · 2004-11-02 · Published · 21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 394 · 124 Cal. App. 4th 620 · 2004 Daily Journal DAR 14328 · 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10585 · 2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 2027

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD LEON, Defendant and Appellant

Proceeding
appeal
Trial court
Superior Court of San Diego County
Trial judge
John L. Davidson
Outcome
modified — The order that Leon pay $13,450 victim restitution is modified to order him to pay $2,450.
Area
criminal
Panel
Alex C. McDonald (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T07:13Z · confidence high

The trial court ordered the defendant to pay $13,450 in joint and several victim restitution for a total loss caused by both himself and his codefendant. The Court of Appeal modified the judgment to limit the defendant's restitution liability to $2,450, the amount directly resulting from his own criminal conduct.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Ordering defendant to pay $13,450 in joint and several victim restitution under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f).
“the trial court was not authorized by section 1202.4 to order Leon to pay restitution for a crime he did not commit.”
de novoerroragree with court
The appellate court correctly identified that Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f) requires restitution for economic loss suffered 'as a result of the defendant’s conduct.' Because the record indicated that $11,000 of the loss was caused solely by the codefendant's independent actions, and there was no finding of aiding and abetting, the trial court exceeded its statutory authority by holding the defendant liable for the codefendant's separate criminal acts. The modification to $2,450 aligns the restitution order with the specific economic loss caused by the defendant's own conviction.

Authorities

  • relied: People v. Blackburn (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1520 — A court may impose joint and several liability for the full amount of economic loss on multiple defendants convicted of the same crime, provided the victim does not obtain a double recovery.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the statutory requirement that restitution must be tied to the defendant's specific conduct, distinguishing the joint and several liability rule in Blackburn which applies to co-defendants in the same crime, not separate crimes. The court properly limits the defendant's liability to the check he personally cashed, ensuring the restitution order complies with Penal Code section 1202.4.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence medium

After a bench trial, the trial court convicted Richard Leon of passing a single forged check ($2,450) and grand theft, sentenced him to the two-year middle term, and ordered him to pay $13,450 in victim restitution under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f), jointly and severally with codefendant Garza, whose separate forged checks accounted for $11,000 of the loss. The Court of Appeal held the trial court lacked statutory authority to order Leon to pay restitution for crimes he did not commit, modified the restitution order to $2,450, and affirmed the judgment as modified.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Order under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f) requiring Leon to pay $13,450 victim restitution jointly and severally with codefendant Garza, rather than the $2,450 attributable to the check Leon himself cashed.
“because $11,000 of Farber’s loss resulted from the crimes of Garza, not Leon, and nothing in the record suggests that Leon aided and abetted commission of Garza’s crimes, the trial court was not authorized by section 1202.4 to order Leon to pay restitution for a crime he did not commit.”
unclearerror (statutory interpretation)agree with court
The opinion does not state a standard of review, but the question is whether section 1202.4 authorizes restitution for losses not caused by the defendant's own conduct, which is effectively a de novo question of statutory authority. Section 1202.4(f) ties restitution to loss 'as a result of the defendant's conduct'; Leon was convicted only of passing one $2,450 check, and the record shows no aiding and abetting of Garza's separate crimes. Blackburn permits joint and several liability only where both defendants caused the loss, so the trial court's reliance on Leon's lack of remorse and being 'part and parcel' of the scheme could not substitute for a causal nexus to the $11,000. The appellate court's conclusion is compelled by the statutory text.

Authorities

  • relied: People v. Blackburn (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1520 — Where two defendants convicted of the same crime caused a victim's economic loss, the court may hold each liable for the full amount of restitution, jointly and severally, so long as the victim does not obtain a double recovery.

The appellate opinion: sound — The court correctly read the 'as a result of the defendant's conduct' language of section 1202.4, subdivision (f) as limiting restitution to losses caused by the defendant's own criminal conduct, and properly distinguished Blackburn's joint-and-several rule as applying only where both defendants caused the loss. The opinion is brief and does not state a standard of review, but the result follows directly from the statutory text and the record, and no omitted authority appears to undermine it.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion — McDonald

Opinion

McDONALD, Acting P. J.

Richard Leon waived his right to a jury trial and was tried by the court, which convicted him of passing a forged check (Pen. Code, § 470, subd. (d)) 1 and grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)). The court also convicted Leon’s codefendant Leslie Garza of three separate counts of passing forged checks and three counts of grand theft. The court sentenced Leon to prison for the two-year middle term for passing a forged check, *622 stayed imposition of sentence for grand theft (§ 654), and ordered him to pay victim restitution under section 1202.4, subdivision (f) of $13,450 jointly and severally with his codefendant Garza. Leon contends the court erred in ordering him to pay $13,450 restitution.

FACTS

On September 13, 2002, Michael Farber was hospitalized after suffering a stroke. While he was in the hospital, his checks were stolen from his apartment. Six checks were fraudulently written on Farber’s account. One for $2,450 was made out to, and cashed by, Leon. Three totaling $11,000 were made out to, and cashed by, Garza.

The probation department recommended that Leon be ordered to pay $2,450 victim restitution for the check underlying his conviction. However, the court found that he was “part and parcel of what was occurring,” showed no remorse, and had no “insight into the bad decision that he made when he did accept the check and cash it and basically taking the funds of an older person who was in a very vulnerable position.” It ordered Leon to pay $13,450 victim restitution jointly and severally with Garza.

DISCUSSION

Section 1202.4, subdivision (f) requires restitution “[i]n every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct.” (Italics added.) Under this statutory language, the courts have found that if two defendants convicted of the same crime caused a victim to suffer economic loss, a court may impose liability on each defendant to pay the full amount of the economic loss, as long as the victim does not obtain a double recovery. (People v. Blackburn (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1520, 1535 [86 Cal.Rptr.2d 134].) However, because $11,000 of Farber’s loss resulted from the crimes of Garza, not Leon, and nothing in the record suggests that Leon aided and abetted commission of Garza’s crimes, the trial court was not authorized by section 1202.4 to order Leon to pay restitution for a crime he did not commit.

*623 DISPOSITION

The order that Leon pay $13,450 victim restitution is modified to order him to pay $2,450. The judgment is affirmed as modified.

McIntyre, J, and Irion, J., concurred.

1

All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by