Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Gross

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento

July 27, 2015

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RICKEY GLENN GROSS, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County Nos. 97F07782, 97F07859, Michael A. Savage, Judge.

Page 1314

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1315

COUNSEL

Pamela R. Elliott for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric Christoffersen and Jennevee H. de Guzman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

ROBIE, ACTING P. J.

Under Welfare and Institutions Code former section 3200, a trial court could dismiss the criminal charges against a defendant who successfully completed a commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC) and the dismissal had (with one exception not applicable here) “the same force and effect as a dismissal under Section 1203.4 of the Penal Code.”[1] (Former Welf. & Inst. Code, former §3200, subd. (b); see People v. Rodriguez (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 522, 527 [52 Cal.Rptr. 643].) When an accusation or information is dismissed under section 1203.4, the defendant is, with certain exceptions, “released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted.” (§ 1203.4, subd. (a)(1).)

In this case, defendant Rickey Glenn Gross contends the dismissal of the criminal charges against him pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code former section 3200 following his successful completion of a CRC commitment operated to release him from the obligation to pay restitution to the victims of his crimes because direct victim restitution “qualifies as a ‘penalty and disability’ pursuant to... section 1203.4.” We disagree. The obligation to make a victim whole through direct victim restitution is a constitutional mandate that serves to protect public safety and welfare, rather than to punish the defendant, and thus it is not a penalty or disability from which a

Page 1316

defendant is released upon the dismissal of criminal charges pursuant to former section 3200 or Penal Code section 1203.4. Accordingly, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

In 1998, defendant pled guilty to two counts of second degree burglary and possession of a destructive device in Sacramento County Superior Court cases Nos. 97F07570 (People v. Gross (Super. Ct. Sacramento County, 1998, No. 97F07570)), 97F07782 (hereafter case No. 782) and 97F07859 (hereafter case No. 859). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of five years four months in state prison but suspended execution of defendant’s sentence and committed him to the CRC.

At sentencing, the trial court ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees as well as direct restitution to his victims. To his victims, the trial court ordered defendant to pay $14, 230 in case No. 859, $31, 083.92 in case No. 782, and a total of $34, 826.59 in several cases dismissed with Harvey[2] waivers (Sacramento County Superior Court cases Nos. “97/53823, ” “97/76959, ” and “97/70929”).[3] In sum, the trial court ordered defendant to pay $80.140.51 in direct restitution to his victims.

In 2001, after defendant successfully completed his CRC commitment, the trial court reinstated the criminal proceedings and dismissed the charges pursuant to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.