Skip to content
Name: People v. Hamilton
Case #: B167189
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 12/20/2003
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 3/24/04

Offsets by insurance and appellant’s mother do not reduce restitution obligation. Appellant pleaded no contest to assault with a firearm in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(2). A condition of probation was that he pay $15,000. in victim restitution under former section 1202.4. The prosecutor here appealed from the trial court’s order offsetting appellant’s restitution by payments made to the victim by the victim’s insurance carrier as well as payments made to the victim by the insurer of appellant’s mother to settle the victim’s civil action against the mother and appellant. The appellate court here reversed the order. As far as the payments made by the victim’s insurance carrier, the victim is entitled to receive from the probationer the full amount of the loss caused by the crime, regardless of whether the victim has purchased private insurance which covers the same losses. As to the payments made by Hamilton’s mother’s insurer, they were made on the mother’s behalf and not Hamilton’s. It could therefore not be used to offset Hamilton’s restitution obligation.