Restitution for fleeing scene of accident cannot be modified after termination of probation

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TAKEYA LASHAY KOONTZY, Defendant and Appellant. (Cal. Ct. App., May 23, 2024, No. A167703) 2024 WL 2350205

Summary: Koontzy (appellant) pled no contest to fleeing the scene of an injury accident (Veh. Code § 20001, subd. (a)) and was placed on probation with the condition that she pay victim restitution in an amount to be determined. Because of the victim’s delay in providing documentation of her damages and failure to appear on multiple dates set for restitution hearings, the trial court did not determine the amount of restitution before termination of appellant’s probation. More than two years post-termination, the court entered an order directing appellant to pay $86,306.12 in victim restitution.

Appellant contends the trial court was without authority to modify the amount of restitution owed to the victim following termination of probation. Appellant relies on People v. Martinez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1093 (Martinez) to argue that the court’s jurisdiction to do so was not extended by Penal Code section 1202.46 because the restitution was not for losses incurred “as a result of the commission of a crime.” (§ 1202.4, subd. (a)(1).)  The case is distinguished from the decision in People v. McCune (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 648, 651–652, review granted Oct. 26, 2022, S276303 (McCune), in which there was no dispute that the restitution was properly imposed under section 1202.4.

Background

Pursuant to an agreement, appellant pleaded no contest with fleeing the scene of an injury accident (Veh. Code § 20001, subd. (a) and agreed to pay “full restitution for all losses & expenses incurred due to this collision.”  In January 2018, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on formal probation for three years with a condition that she pay victim restitution in an amount to be determined.

In April 2019, the probation department filed a restitution investigation report indicating that the victim had requested $86,347.77 in restitution for “medical bills, ambulance fees, and prescription costs.” A contested restitution hearing was set and continued numerous times. The victim did not always respond in a timely manner, which has led to some of the delays. The failed to appear for hearing

Appellant completed the three-year term of probation on January 31, 2021, and in February 2022, appellant filed a petition for dismissal pursuant to section 1203.4.

In April 2023, the trial court conducted a contested restitution hearing. And ordered restitution in the amount of $86,306.12.

Modification of restitution order following termination of probation

Appellant argues that the trial court was not authorized to order restitution under section 1202.4 for losses due to the collision, because her criminal conduct in fleeing the scene of the accident was not the cause of those losses. (

Proposition 8 and Restitution

Proposition 8, adopted by the voters in 1982, granted crime victims a constitutional right to receive restitution from the convicted person in nearly all cases. The Legislature expanded victims’ access to restitution in the 1990’s by enacting section 1202.4.  Subdivision (f) of section 1202.4 [provides]: ‘[i]f the amount of loss cannot be ascertained at the time of sentencing, the restitution order shall include a provision that the amount shall be determined at the direction of the court. The court shall order full restitution.’ In that situation—where the court defers setting the amount of restitution until the victim’s loss becomes clear—section 1202.46 extends the court’s jurisdiction to set the amount: ‘Notwithstanding Section 1170, when the economic losses of a victim cannot be ascertained at the time of sentencing pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 1202.4, the court shall retain jurisdiction over a person subject to a restitution order for purposes of imposing or modifying restitution until such time as the losses may be determined.’ (§ 1202.46.)  Section 1202.46 expressly preserves the court’s jurisdiction to follow the process in section 1202.4, which serves the constitutional mandate to ensure full victim restitution.” (McCune, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at pp. 652–653.)

Section 1202.46 grants the court jurisdiction ‘for purposes of imposing or modifying restitution until such time as the losses may be determined’ (§ 1202.46), even if that occurs after probation has ended.” (McCune, at pp. 654–655.)

Appellant argues McCune is distinguishable because the restitution order in the present case could not have been made pursuant to section 1202.4, because the victim’s damages were not due to her criminal conduct. The California Supreme Court’s decision in Martinez, supra, 2 Cal.5th 1093, which also involved a conviction under Vehicle Code section 20001, subdivision (a), is directly on point. Martinez explained that, “[A]lthough the Vehicle Code section 20001(a) offense is commonly referred to as a hit and run, the term is something of a misnomer; the offense is ‘more accurately described as fleeing the scene of an injury accident.’  That is to say, ‘ “the act made criminal” ’ under the statute ‘ “is not the ‘hitting’ but the ‘running.”

Defendant’s crime was not being involved in a traffic accident, nor does his conviction imply that he was at fault in the accident. Defendant’s crime, rather, was leaving the scene of the accident without presenting identification or rendering aid. Thus, under section 1202.4, the trial court was authorized to order restitution for those injuries that were caused or exacerbated by defendant’s criminal flight from the scene of the accident, but it was not authorized to award restitution for injuries resulting from the accident itself.” (Martinez, supra, 2 Cal.5th at pp. 1097–1098; see also id. at pp. 1104–1105, 1107.)

Under Martinez, the trial court could order restitution for losses due to the accident itself only as a probation condition under section 1203.1. Modification of the restitution order after termination of probation could not, in this case, be based on the express retention of jurisdiction in section 1202.46.

Probation conditions ordered under section 1203.1 are subject to the limitations imposed by section 1203.3 and may not be modified following termination of probation. The restitution order in the present case was not issued pursuant to section 1202.4, because the victim’s damages were not due to appellant’s criminal conduct.

The trial court was not authorized to impose the restitution obligation under section 1202.4. Because the order was not imposed under section 1202.4, section 1202.46 did not provide a basis to extend jurisdiction to modify restitution following termination of probation. Instead, the restitution order was a condition imposed under section 1203.1, and it was subject to the limitations in section 1203.3 permitting modification of probation conditions only during the term of probation. Accordingly, the trial court was without authority to modify the restitution order following termination of probation.

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only.  Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.