Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
People v. Hudson
113 Cal. App. 4th 924 (Cal. App. 2003) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55500
Description
County Welfare Agency Must Apply Earned Income Disregard in Calculating Food Stamp Restitution After Recipient’s Fraud Conviction
Abstract
The California Court of Appeal ruled that state law allowed county
welfare agency to collect in restitution only the amount to which
it would have been entitled in the absence of defendant’s
fraud. Regardless of administrative regulations, agency must apply
the earned income disregard in calculating the food stamp benefit
restitution that was a condition of defendant’s probation.
Between 1997 and 2001 defendant received various benefits,
including food stamps. She failed to report the full amount of her
unemployment benefits and wages, was charged with welfare fraud,
and pleaded no contest. Restitution was a condition of her
probation. At her restitution hearing, agency employee testified
that under state regulations, although food stamp recipients were
entitled to a 20 percent earned income disregard in determining
their benefits, those who failed to report income were not to
receive the benefit of the disregard in calculating overpayments.
Ruling that this approach impermissibly penalized defendant, the
court ordered agency to recalculate the restitution amount by using
the income disregard. Agency refused, and the court declined to
order any food stamp restitution. On defendant’s appeal, the
appellate court said that agency’s position violated
People v. Crow, 6 Cal. 4th 952 (1993), which interpreted
California Penal Code § 1202.4(f), the statutory basis for
victim restitution. The appellate court noted that, under
Crow, agency was entitled only to the amount that it would
have paid had no fraud occurred, in which case it would have
applied the income disregard. While the regulations might govern
agency’s right to impose administrative penalties,
Crow governed restitution following a criminal conviction.
However, the appellate court said that the lower court had
alternatives short of complete denial of restitution.
