Court Opinion

ID: 9559901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:37:42.220045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:50.684015
License: Public Domain

PANELLI, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I would reverse that part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the superior court’s judgment ordering defendant to make restitution in the amount of $31,807 to the Lake County Department of Social Services. Government Code section 13967, subdivision (c), authorizes restitution to be paid to a “victim” in cases in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s criminal conduct and the defendant is denied probation. Government Code section 13960, however, limits the definition of “victim" to those “persons” resident in California. I continue to believe, as the Legislature has expressly provided, that the definitions contained in Government Code section 13960 apply to Government Code section 13967, subdivision (c). (See People v. Broussard (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1067, 1077 [22 Cal.Rptr.2d 278, 856 P.2d 1134] (dis. opn. of Panelli, J.).) Therefore, I cannot agree with the majority’s interpretation of Government Code section 13967, subdivision (c), because it is inconsistent with express statutory language. Under the existing statutory *964scheme, a goverment agency cannot be a “victim” for purposes of restitution as it is neither a person nor a resident of California.
Mosk, J., concurred.