Contested Restitution Hearing Results in Significant Reduction of Claimed Loss from Victims in Eight Car Collision DUI Case!

Our client was originally charged with two counts of DUI in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152(a) and 23152(b) after hitting eight parked cars and admitting to drinking two beers prior to driving and smoking marijuana. Our client had a low blood alcohol content (“BAC”) but did not perform well on the field sobriety tests. Despite the circumstances of the offense, after diligently investigating the charges, we were able to negotiate to a wet reckless charge for our client.

As a condition of his sentence, our client had stipulated to restitution liability for damaging the parked cars.

At the initial restitution hearing, one victim was requesting over $3,000 for loss of use of his vehicle during the time the insurance claim took to resolve. Another victim was also claiming restitution for the gap in coverage after payout by our client’s insurance company and also for loss of equity. The matter was put over to allow our office to review the documents the victims had provided.

After review of the documents, it was clear that the victim requesting restitution for the loss of use of his vehicle pending compensation from the insurance company was not entitled to restitution unless he actually suffered economic loss. The other victim was also not entitled to loss of equity but should receive compensation for the gap in payment only.

At the restitution hearing, we explained our position to the prosecution and they agreed. We then stipulated to compensation to the victim for the gap in insurance payout.

Our assistance at the restitution hearing saved our client over $5,000 in claimed loss!

We can help you now! Call now for a free telephonic consultation at 626.577.7700!

DISCLAIMER:

The information in this blog post (“post”) is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction. No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from Escovar & Avila, LLP or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader of this post should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through, this Post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s state, country or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction. The information on this website is a communication and is for informational purposes only. The facts of every case are unique and nothing on this page or on this website should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. The information on this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship and viewing of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship. The result portrayed in this advertisement was dependent on the facts of this case. Results will differ if based on different facts.

Categories: