Page 3
Orange Superior Court Appellate Division:
Interest Is Due on Victim Restitution Orders
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Legislation wiping out costs imposed by a court on persons convicted of misdemeanors and infractions does not eliminate interest on restitution owed to a victim, the Orange Superior Court’s Appellate Division has held.
The opinion was filed on April 26; on June 5, Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal denied transfer of the case to itself; and on June 10, it was made public.
Orange Superior Court Judge John R. Zitny authored the opinion. In a portion certified for publication, he said that the “plain language” of Penal Code §1465.9, as amended in 2021 by AB 177, “provides only certain ‘court-imposed costs’ are unenforceable and uncollectible,” adding:
“The plain language does not include interest accrued on the restitution amount owed to the victim….Because the language is clear and would not result in absurd consequences, we follow its plain meaning.”
He said “there is no indication the Legislature intended to provide convicted defendants relief from interest on victim restitution” and noted that Penal Code §1202.4(f)(3)(G), providing for interest on victim restitution awards remains intact.
The judge added that “[i]nterest is required to make the victim whole.”
Orange Superior Court Judge Kevin Haskins did eliminate interest on a restitution order in favor of the state. Zitny explained:
“Unlike victim restitution, fees for the cost of administering the criminal justice system are not designed to make a victim whole.”
He declared that “[o]ur conclusion is consistent with constitutional, statutory, and decisional law upholding a maximum of 10 percent per annum interest on judgments,” pointing to Art. XV, §1(2) of the California Constitution which provides:
“The rate or interest upon a judgment rendered in any court of this state shall be set by the Legislature at not more than 10 percent per annum.”
The decision comes in an appeal by Adam Thomas Foster who pled guilty to two counts of violating a protective order, in return for which one count of battery and one count of false imprisonment were dismissed.
In an unpublished portion of the opinion, Zitny said Foster’s postjudgment motion to withdraw his guilty plea was properly denied.
The case is People v. Foster, 30-2022-01298571.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company