(Super. Ct. No. P10CRF0040)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease , Acting P. J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Douglas Widick pleaded no contest to two counts of child molestation, in exchange for dismissal of two other counts of the same crime against the same victim and a stipulated prison term. On appeal, he challenges the constitutionality of Penal Code*fn1 section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3)(F), pursuant to which the trial court awarded the victim $10,000 in non-economic damages, and contends the $300 sex offender fine assessed under section 290.3 fine must be reduced to $100. The People concede only that the sex offender fine must be reduced. We agree with the People that the fine must be reduced, but to $200 not $100. We shall do so and otherwise affirm the judgment.
In 2010, defendant was charged with having committed lewd acts against John Doe between January 1995 and March 1998, when the victim was under 14 years old (§ 288, subd. (a)).
Defendant pleaded no contest to two molestation charges and was sentenced to prison.
After sentencing, the victim sought restitution in the amount of $10,000 for psychological harm he suffered as a result of the molestation, pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3)(F), which allows the trial court to award victim restitution for "[n]oneconomic losses, including, but not limited to, psychological harm, for felony violations of Section 288." In support of his claim for non-economic damages, the victim submitted a declaration explaining the ways in which the crimes had a significant emotional and psychological impact on his life, contributing to (among others) his experiencing severe social anxiety, panic attacks, "a very bad stuttering issue," and low self-confidence.
At a contested restitution hearing, defendant argued that the statute allowing an award of non-economic damages is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, violates his constitutional right to a jury trial on the issue of damages, and violates the equal protection clauses of the federal and state Constitutions. The trial court entered an order for restitution, awarding the victim non-economic damages of $10,000.
I. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Awarding Non-economic Damages
Section 1202.4, subdivision (f), requires the trial court to order the defendant to pay restitution to the victim "in an amount established by court order, based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim or victims or any other showing to the court." With one exception, restitution orders are limited to the victim's economic damages. The exception is for "[n]oneconomic losses, including, but not limited to, psychological harm, for ...