Wednesday, September 2, 2026
Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Non-Economic Restitution Award of $1.8 Million Is Affirmed
Opinion Rejects View That Judge Must Provide Some Formula as to Calculation of Damages, Says Order Only Subject to Review for Whether Amount Is So Grossly Excessive as to Shock Conscience
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
The Fifth District Court of Appeal yesterday affirmed an order awarding a victim of childhood sexual abuse $1.8 million in restitution for non-economic losses, as well as smaller amounts to her mother and brother, rejecting the defendant’s assertion that a trial judge is obligated to provide a methodology as to how he arrived at the calculation of damages in order to allow meaningful review of whether the decree is reasonable.
Justice Kathleen Meehan, writing for the court, acknowledged that the order appears to involve the largest award of non-economic damages at issue in a published case in California addressing restitution, saying:
“While the published cases in the criminal restitution context involve smaller noneconomic restitution amounts than awarded here, several of the cases involve amounts that are near or at a million dollars in noneconomic restitution.”
However, she declared:
“Determining an award of noneconomic restitution does not require the trial court to articulate a specific calculation method—it is necessarily a subjective analysis that is fact sensitive. When a party claims the trial court’s award of noneconomic restitution is excessive, we apply the shocks-the-conscience standard to determine whether the award amount is arbitrarily and capriciously excessive.”
Sexual Abuse
The question arose after Miguel Castillo Jr. was convicted of multiple counts of childhood sexual abuse, including a violation of Penal Code §288(c)(1), involving a party identified only as “Doe” in 2022. At the trial, Doe testified that Castillo was a family friend who inappropriately touched her on multiple occasions, starting when she was eight years old.
At a 2024 resentencing hearing, he was sentenced to more than 50 years to life in prison based on the current offenses and certain enhancements. Doe and her mother testified at subsequent restitution proceedings that the offenses profoundly impacted the family.
Doe, who was an adult at the time of the restitution hearing, said that her family moved to get away from the defendant following her disclosure of the abuse and that she twice tried to commit suicide. She also testified that she transferred schools multiple times after reporting the abuse as many mutual friends sided with the defendant.
She asked for $5 million in restitution, citing her need for ongoing mental health counseling and continuing psychological problems. Her mother also purportedly suffers from major depression and anxiety and testified that her eldest son, who saw himself as Doe’s protector, also experienced anguish over the revelations of abuse.
On Jan. 14, 2025, Kern Superior Court Judge John D. Oglesby issued an order awarding non-economic restitution to Doe in the amount of $1.8 million, saying that “significant evidence [was] presented of the destruction of her psychological well-being as manifested by the significant depression and suicidal thoughts of which she continues to suffer.”
He also ordered the defendant to pay $250,000 to her mother, $50,000 to her brother, and $10,000 to her sister after finding that they “suffered trauma and psychological harm as a result of the victimization of Doe.”
Non-Economic Losses
Although restitution orders are generally limited to a victim’s economic damages, Meehan pointed out that Penal Code §1202.4(f)(3)(F) creates an exception allowing “[n]oneconomic losses, including, but not limited to, psychological harm” in the case of a felony violation of §288. She commented:
“Defendant asserts the trial court was obligated to provide a clear statement of the calculation method it employed to formulate the noneconomic restitution ordered, which the trial court failed to do….According to defendant, by failing to articulate its calculation method, the trial court did not demonstrate how its method was reasonable and nonarbitrary, and, as such, the ruling is insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.”
Rejecting this view, the jurist remarked:
“Establishing the amount of restitution does not require the formalities of other phases of a criminal prosecution, and, thus, sentencing judges have wide discretion as to the kind and sources of information they can consider.”
Citing the 2011 Third District decision in People v. Smith, which held that “[w]e…affirm a restitution order for noneconomic damages that does not, at first blush, shock the conscience or suggest passion, prejudice or corruption on the part of the trial court,” Meehan opined:
“Smith’s reasoning…persuade[s] us the trial court was not required to set forth a particular methodology for calculating the noneconomic restitution nor is the articulation of a specific methodology or formula necessary to permit meaningful appellate review of such restitution. Criminal noneconomic restitution cases such as Smith, as well as civil noneconomic damage cases…, point to the difficulty and subjective nature of calculating noneconomic damages—they are not susceptible to precise methods or objective quantification.”
Grossly Excessive
She added:
“[E]valuating whether an award of noneconomic restitution is so grossly excessive it shocks the conscience involves an examination of the nature and extent of the harm inflicted, the noneconomic losses suffered by the victim(s), and, where possible, a comparison to other similar cases. Importantly, however, comparable harm in other cases may not result in the same amount of noneconomic loss—the extent of psychological harm suffered may vary dramatically from victim to victim.”
Applying the standard, she reasoned:
“Here, the trial court explained the basis for the award of noneconomic damages to the victims, identifying the evidence it relied on and the findings of fact it drew from the evidence regarding the harm suffered by Doe and her family. The court’s assessment of the evidence is adequate to provide a rational basis for an award of noneconomic damages. In formulating its ruling, it might be useful for the trial court to organize noneconomic losses by particular time periods, or other method or grouping, but there is no requirement that it do so.”
She recognized that “the molestation was not as heinous as it is in some cases,” but said:
“While the molestation inflicted on Doe may not be the worst abuse imaginable, there is substantial evidence that she experienced considerable pain and suffering flowing from the abuse. While she has never been admitted to an inpatient program for suicidal ideation, that is not a minimum threshold to credit the severity of her emotional distress.”
The court affirmed the order as to Doe’s mother and brother but vacated the award to her sister, saying that supporting testimony was “generically worded as the effects on Doe’s…family generally.”
The case is People v. Castillo, 2026 S.O.S. 2794.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company