Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Shawn Anthony Delaittre pleaded no contest to first degree burglary of a hotel room, battery inflicting injury on a peace officer, and deterring a peace officer by removing a taser from her person or immediate presence. Under the negotiated disposition, the remaining counts were dismissed, but Delaittre agreed the court could consider them at sentencing. The San Luis Obispo County Superior Court placed him on two years of felony probation, with terms including 364 days in county jail. Because there was no trial, the appellate court drew its factual summary from the preliminary hearing transcript.
Officer E.L. responded to a reported theft at the Seacrest Oceanfront Hotel. When she attempted to detain Delaittre, he resisted, choked her, pulled out her hair, pinned her against a wall, scratched her face, and grabbed her taser. At later restitution hearings, E.L. described a traumatic brain injury, neck and knee injuries, facial injuries, migraines, seizures, memory problems, and renewed posttraumatic stress disorder. Although she had planned to remain a police officer for seven more years, her injuries led to a medical retirement.
The trial court ordered $373,933.85 in restitution. The challenged components included $346,967.88 for future lost wages, $2,524.92 for past medical expenses, $433.15 for home-security costs beyond a victim-compensation payment, and $20,419.74 for increased insurance premiums. The wage calculation used the difference between E.L.'s police pay and retirement benefits over 84 months. The court excluded speculative promotions and declined adjustments for inflation or the time value of money. Delaittre appealed, challenging several awards and raising ineffective-assistance and due-process claims.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District Court of Appeal, Division Six, affirmed. It explained that restitution serves to make victims whole and that, because probation was granted, the trial court had broader discretion over losses reasonably related to the offenses. The prosecution could establish a prima facie loss through victim testimony, after which the defendant bore the burden of showing a different amount. Review was for abuse of discretion, with factual findings tested for substantial evidence.
The court found substantial evidence that E.L. could not work: physicians had not cleared her return, CalPERS documented disability retirement, and she testified that she was unable to work. Limited volunteer activity did not defeat that showing, and possible future employment did not preclude compensation. The seven-year period was rationally tied to her expected retirement date, not an arbitrary five-year limit. On present value, Delaittre supplied no discount formula or figures. The trial court reasonably left inflation and time-value adjustments uncalculated because the factors would operate in opposite directions.
The ineffective-assistance claim failed because counsel cross-examined E.L. about her ability to work, the record did not reveal the scope of counsel's investigation, and speculation about undisclosed evidence did not establish prejudice. The court also upheld the nonrefundable mental-health conference fee, the remaining security-system expense, an unreceipted but sworn and unrefuted cash installation payment, and jet plasma treatment for scarring. It rejected the argument that only doctor-prescribed treatment qualifies. A corrected probation order and denial of Madonna Inn restitution required no further relief, and the remaining due-process theory failed because no underlying legal error was shown.
Key Takeaways
- Future-wage restitution may rest on substantial evidence of disability and expected retirement rather than a fixed five-year cap or vocational-expert testimony.
- A defendant seeking a present-value reduction should supply evidence or a workable calculation instead of merely requesting a rational discount.
- Sworn victim testimony can substantiate an expense even without a receipt when the testimony is unrefuted.
- Restitution is not confined to doctor-prescribed treatment, and probation can support reimbursement for expenses reasonably related to the crime.
- An ineffective-assistance claim fails on a silent investigation record without proof of deficient performance and a reasonable probability of a different result.
Why It Matters
The decision applies California's broad victim-restitution framework to a career-ending assault on a police officer while retaining meaningful limits on speculative calculations. It approved a wage award grounded in documented retirement and an expected retirement date, but it did not treat every projection as recoverable: the trial court had excluded hoped-for promotions and denied unsupported medical expenses.
The opinion also distinguishes a trial court's obligation to consider present value from a duty to invent a discount rate without evidence. Its treatment of conference fees, security expenses, cash payments, and nonprescribed scar treatment illustrates how causation, reasonable relationship to the crime, and evidentiary support—not a particular form of documentation or medical provider—can control restitution disputes.