P. v. Clay CA6
Defendant Antaniqua Marcella Clay pleaded no contest to attempted grand theft of personal property with a value exceeding $950 (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 484, 487, subd. (a)), misdemeanor concealing or withholding stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), possession of personal identifying information with intent to defraud and a prior conviction (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(2)), and misdemeanor battery (§§ 242, 243, subd. (a)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years with various terms and conditions, including that she pay restitution to American Express in the amount of $622.59.
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding restitution to American Express because it was not a “direct victim” within the meaning of the restitution statute. (§ 1202.4, subd. (k)(2).) She also argues that the restitution award to American Express results in a “windfall” to another entity. Lastly, defendant
Comments on P. v. Clay CA6