Filed 9/22/22 P. v. Achterberg CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ALLEN WAYNE 

ACHTERBERG,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B317880

(Super. Ct. No. 21CR01702)

(Santa Barbara County)

Allen Wayne Achterberg appeals from the restitution order 

entered after he pleaded no contest to making criminal threats

against Jane Doe (Pen. Code,

1 § 422, subd. (a)) and stalking her 

(§ 646.9, subd. (b)). The trial court ordered him to serve three 

years of formal probation and pay $2,400 in restitution. 

Achterberg contends the restitution order should be vacated 

because prosecutors failed to show his criminal conduct caused 

Jane’s losses. We affirm.

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Achterberg and Jane were in an abusive relationship for 14 

years. They had three children together. In September 2021, 

Achterberg pleaded no contest to making criminal threats against 

Jane in March 2021 and to stalking her between December 2020 

and March 2021. In exchange for his plea, Achterberg agreed to 

serve three years of formal probation with domestic violence 

terms (including a 10-year protective order) and pay restitution. 

The probation report submitted before the restitution 

hearing disclosed that Achterberg destroyed some of Jane’s 

property while the two shared an apartment and refused to let 

Jane retrieve other items after she moved out. Jane requested 

$2,400 in restitution for property that was damaged, destroyed, 

or withheld; dog shelter fines incurred; and to cover her half of 

the deposit on the apartment she rented with Achterberg. 

At the restitution hearing, Achterberg objected that Jane’s

request included losses incurred before the offenses to which he 

had pleaded occurred. The prosecutor clarified that Jane 

requested restitution “for items that were either broken [or]

stolen, or expenses that were incurred” between December 2020 

and March 2021. Achterberg then objected that the items for 

which Jane requested restitution were unrelated to his

underlying offenses since she had left them behind when she 

moved out of the apartment. He also objected to paying 

restitution for the deposit on their apartment since Jane did not 

remove her name from the lease and was not named in eviction 

proceedings. 

The prosecutor responded that Achterberg continuously 

threatened and stalked Jane. She could not retrieve her property

from the apartment without fear of contact with Achterberg. 
3

Additionally, Jane was negatively affected by the eviction 

proceedings because her name remained on the lease. 

The trial court determined that Jane’s restitution request 

was proper under section 1202.4. It ordered Achterberg to pay 

the $2,400 requested. 

DISCUSSION

Achterberg contends the $2,400 restitution order should be 

vacated because he did not cause Jane’s losses. We disagree.

Victims of crimes have a constitutional right to restitution. 

(Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b), par. (13).) Such restitution 

may be ordered as a condition of probation. (People v. Snow

(2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 932, 939 (Snow); see § 1203.1, subd. (j).) 

When so ordered, the amount of restitution is not limited to 

losses due to crimes for which the defendant was convicted but

may also include losses “caused by related conduct not resulting 

in a conviction.” (Snow, at p. 939.) This includes losses 

attributable to “conduct of which a defendant has been acquitted 

[citation], uncharged conduct, and conduct for which the statute 

of limitations has run [citation].” (Id. at pp. 939-940.)

We review a restitution order for abuse of discretion. 

(Snow, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at p. 940.) We will find no abuse 

so long as “‘“‘there is a factual and rational basis for the amount 

of restitution ordered by the trial court. [Citations.]’”’” (People v. 

Moore (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1231.) Such a basis exists if 

the restitution ordered is “reasonably . . . related either to the 

crime of which defendant [was] convicted or to the goal of 

deterring future criminality.” (Snow, at p. 940, italics omitted.) 

Snow, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th 932 is instructive. The Snow 

defendant pleaded no contest to false imprisonment and was 

placed on probation. (Id. at p. 934.) As a condition of probation, 
4

the trial court ordered the defendant to pay restitution, including 

$420 for dental expenses the victim incurred after a prior, 

uncharged assault. (Id. at pp. 936, 940.) The defendant

challenged the restitution order to the extent it required him to 

pay the dental expenses. (Id. at p. 934.) Our colleagues in the 

Third District rejected the challenge, noting that the defendant’s 

prior assault was both “reasonably” and “directly” related to his 

false imprisonment conviction. (Id. at p. 940.) The restitution 

order also “serve[d] the goal of deterring future assaultive 

conduct.” (Ibid.)

So too here. Jane endured abuse from Achterberg

throughout their 14-year-long relationship. He threatened to slit 

her throat and told her that “someone [was] going to die.” Such 

abusive behavior was reasonably and directly related to the 

crimes to which Achterberg pleaded no contest and was placed on

probation with domestic violence terms. (Compare, e.g., § 422

[offense of criminal threats requires victim to fear for their own 

safety] with Snow, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at p. 940 [domestic 

violence affects victim’s state of mind and results in ongoing fear 

and intimidation].) It was thus proper for the trial court to order 

restitution for the items damaged or destroyed during

Achterberg’s abuse. It was also proper for the court to order 

restitution to deter his future criminality. (Snow, at p. 940.) 

There was no abuse of discretion.
5

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s restitution order, entered January 24, 

2022, is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J.
John F. McGregor, Judge

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

______________________________

Jolene Larimore, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief 

Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant 

Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Peggy Z. Huang, Deputy 

Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.