Tuesday, September 15, 2026
Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Rape Victim Rightly Granted Restitution for Lost Scholarship
Opinion Rejects View That Recent U.S. Supreme Court Case Changes Landscape of Restitution in California, Says No Error in Awarding $20,000 to Survivor of On-Campus Assault Who Withdrew After Attack
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
Div. Six of this district’s Court of Appeal held yesterday that a trial judge did not abuse her discretion in awarding the rape victim of an on-campus assault $20,000 in restitution to account for a four-year scholarship she lost after withdrawing from classes at the Camarillo-based California State University Channel Islands in the wake of the attack, rejecting the defendant’s view that a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision operates to require a jury-trial on the issue.
The defendant argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Ellingburg v. U.S., which held that the federal Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (“MVRA”) authorizes monetary awards to victims as a criminal sanction, gives defendants the right to a trial by jury on the topic of restitution when considered in light of the court’s 2000 opinion in Apprendi v. New Jersey.
Because the Apprendi opinion declares that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, the defendant asserted that the two cases, when taken together, prescribe restitution awards that are not submitted to a fact-finding panel. Cody explained:
“California courts have held uniformly that restitution does not constitute punishment and, therefore, does not implicate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights….Appellant argues Ellingburg overturned this precedent when it held that restitution under the…MVRA…constitutes criminal punishment under the ex post facto clause. Apprendi error thus occurred because his punishment exceeded the statutory maximum.”
California Framework
Saying that “[w]e disagree,” Cody pointed out that, while “California’s restitution framework shares some of” the same features as the MVRA, the scheme is designed to compensate victims and “do[es] not indicate punitive intent.”
As to the defendant’s assertion that the portion of the award attributable to the victim’s lost scholarship funds was “speculative” because the victim was only a freshman at the time she withdrew from classes and had to meet certain academic goals to maintain eligibility to continue receiving yearly distributions, Cody agreed with Ventura Superior Court Judge Catherine Voelker, who remarked at the restitution hearing:
“[I]n this particular case, the amount of economic loss is specific. She had a $20,000 scholarship and then she did not. She would not qualify even if she tried to reapply, and the law does not require her to reapply to prove she lost what she lost to begin with.”
Challenging the restitution order was Kavi Michael Singh, who was accused of assaulting the victim, identified only as “Jane Doe,” in her dorm room after he had been invited over to watch a movie in November 2023. He pled guilty to one count of forcible rape and signed a plea form acknowledging his duty to pay restitution in an amount to be decided by a judge at a future hearing.
In August 2025, Voelker sentenced Singh to three years in state prison and ordered him to pay $3,865.04 in restitution for Doe’s medical bills, counseling, and the cost of purchasing a therapy dog, as well as additional restitution in an amount “to be determined” at a future hearing.
Restitution Hearing
At a hearing held the following month, Doe’s mother testified that her daughter had been awarded $6,000 in scholarship funds from the university for her first academic year and that the amount would be renewed each year, up to a maximum of $20,000, if she maintained a high grades at the institution.
She also said that Doe was prevented from returning to the school due to the assault and instead enrolled in a trade program for respiratory therapists, for which there was no scholarship money available. Doe’s mother also indicated that, even if her daughter re-enrolled at the university, she would not be entitled to the award as it is one designated only for first-time freshmen.
Singh pointed out that “scholarship funds” is not listed as one of the examples of allowable recoveries in the restitution statute, found at Penal Code §1202.4, which provides that “the court shall require that the defendant make restitution” to a victim “based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim…or any other showing to the court.”
The section demands full repayment of a victim’s pecuniary losses but does not authorize non-economic damages. Likening the scholarship funds to future lost wages, Voelker ordered the defendant to pay Doe $20,000.
Two Reasons
Addressing the defendant’s constitutional challenge, Cody said Singh’s argument fails “for two reasons” and opined:
“First, victim restitution is not criminal punishment….
“Second, direct restitution is not subject to any statutory maximum.”
She continued:
“Ellingburg did not change either of these long-held rationales for denying defendants jury trials on restitution in California. It analyzed the ‘text and structure’ of the MVRA and found that Congress intended the statute to be criminal punishment.”
As to the California scheme, she wrote:
“Section 1202.4 does not mention imposing restitution ‘in lieu of’ other punishments or describe it as a penalty. It speaks of compensating crime victims for ‘economic loss’ and ‘fully reimburs[ing]’ them….Indeed, the Legislature enacted section 1202.4 to implement Marsy’s Law, a successful ballot initiative guaranteeing crime victims certain legal rights. One of those rights is to ‘seek and secure restitution’ for losses resulting from criminal activity….This constitutional guaranty is designed to compensate victims, not punish defendants.”
The jurist added:
“Apprendi applies only to determinate punishments….Section 1202.4 is an indeterminate framework for imposition of restitution. Apprendi and therefore Ellingburg do not apply for this reason.”
Turning to the amount of the award, Cody commented:
“The restitution order placed Doe in the position she would have been in but for appellant’s criminal conduct….
“The Court compared the lost scholarship money to lost wages and found it was not ‘speculative’ to believe Doe would have met the minimum requirements to maintain the scholarship year to year. The order gives Doe the same ability to fund her education that she had before appellant committed the crime.”
The case is People v. Singh, 2026 S.O.S. 2915.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company