Filed 10/10/ 22 P. v. Fay CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DANIELLE ELIZABETH FAY,

Defendant and Appellant

. H0497 27 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C2102058 )

D efendant Danielle Elizabeth Fay appeals from two order s for victim restitution in
the total amount of $20,978.29, entered as a condition of probation after s he pleaded no

contest to one count of using force upon and threatening force against a witness or

property of a witness . (Pen. Code, § 140, subd. (a). ) 1

We appointed counsel to represent Fay in this court. Her a ppointed counsel filed

an opening brief that states the case and the facts but raises no issues

. Counsel asks this

court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any

arguable issu es. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The clerk of this court

mailed a letter to Fay’ s last known address notifying her of h er right to submit written

argument on her own behalf. The letter was returned as undeliverable

. The clerk

checked with counsel, who experienced the same problem and was not able to find

another address. Fay did not file any written arguments on her own behalf

.

1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.2

Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Fay

,

we affirm the restitution orders

.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On February 11, 2021, Fay was charged with three counts: (1) felony violation of

section 140, subdivision (a), for using force upon and threatening force and violence

upon a witness or p roperty of a witness by willfully using force upon the victim because

she had provided assistance and information to a law enforcement officer in a criminal

proceeding; (2) felony violation of section 664 and section 212.5 , subdivision (c), for

attempted robbery in the second degree , for attempting to take a cell phone from the

victim against her will b y means of force and fear; and (3) misdemeanor violation of

section 243, subdivision (a), for battery for willfully and unlawfully using force an d

violence upon the victim

. 2

On April 8, 2021, Fay pleaded no contest to the violation of section 140,

subdivision (a), and the other counts were dismissed pursuant to a Harvey stipulation. 3

On June 8, 2021, t he trial court sentenced Fay to a year in county jail, modifiable

after eight months by the Mental Health Treatment Court , and two years of probation

.
The trial court also stated that it would make a general order of victim restitution

and set the matter for a hearing

. The victim provided docum entation in support of a
restitution claim for $20,978.29. Of that amount, $8,000 constituted the victim’s lost
wages, and the balance constituted lost wages of the victim’s adult daughter , who was

forced to leave her job to take care of the victim

. Fay, through her counsel, submitted objections to the claimed restitution. She

argued that the child of an adult victim is not entitled to recover lost wages under

section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3)(D), and that her conduct was not the proximate cause

2 We omit a summary of the underlying facts that led to the charges against Fay, as they are not material to our resolution of this appeal.

3 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.3

of the daughter’s lost wages. Fay then submitted supplemental objections, in which she

acknowledged that , under section 1203.1, the court has discretion to order restitution as a

condition of probation even when the losses are not necessarily caused by the c riminal
conduct underlying the defendant’s conviction, but argued that the court should exercise

its discretion to deny restitution for the daughter in this instance because it would not

serve any of the purposes listed in the statute.

The trial court he ld the restitution hearing on December 22, 2021. After hearing
argument from counsel, the court ordered restitution in the full amount of $20,978.29

, finding that section 1202.4 includes an expansive definition of “victim” and noting that

the corresponden ce from the victim’s daughter demonstrated she needed to care for the

victim.

The trial court entered the restitution orders on December 23, 2021. Fay timely

appealed the orders.

II. Discussion

California crime victims have a constitutional and stat utory right to receive full

restitution for economic losses suffered as a result of a defendant ’ s criminal conduct.

( People v. Walker (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1273

- 1274; Cal. Const., art. I, § 28,

subd. (b)(13); § 1202.4, subds. (a)(1), (a)(3)(B), (f).)

When a defendant is placed on probation, restitution is authorized as a condition of

probation. (§ 1203.1, subd. (a)(3); People v. Anderson (2010) 50 Cal.4th 19, 27.) Trial

courts have broad discretion in ordering restitution as a condit ion of probation under

section 1203.1 . ( People v. Martinez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1093, 1101.)

Pursuant to People v. Wende

, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire

record . W e find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to

Fay

. III. Disposition

The orders are affirmed.___________________________________ Wilson, J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________________

Bamattre

- Manoukian

, Acting P.J.

______________________________________

Danner, J.

People v. Fay H 0497 2 7