Legal Opinion

People v. Jennings

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 4, 2005No. D043944PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

AARON, J.

I

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Jason Jennings appeals from a postjudgment order to modify restitution. Jennings argues that the trial court erred in failing to apply the proceeds paid to his victim by his insurance carrier in a civil settlement against the amount of restitution ordered by the court in Jennings’s criminal case. We conclude that the trial court should have offset Jennings’s restitution obligation by his insurer’s payments to the victim to the extent the payments were made to cover the costs of items included in the court’s restitution order.

II

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. People v. BirkettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  2. People v. BernalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  3. People v. HoveCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
  4. Alex Robertson Co. v. Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 1992
  5. Truck Insurance Exchange v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. People v. MillardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  2. People v. CooperCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  3. People v. WeaverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  4. People v. RunyanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  5. People v. SoriaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API