H.B. v. Superior Court of Solano County
Annotate this Case
According to H.B., Hall “mentally and physically” abused H.B. “every day [she] was under his control for over [three and a half years].” Hall made H.B. “work for him,” providing “sexual services to customers” and charging “from $80 to $1,000 per customer.” She “earned approximately $300 daily” but Hall “took all of this money.” After Hall pleaded no contest to human trafficking and pimping, H.B. sought restitution of $340,500: $31,336 for stolen Social Security payments and damage to her credit score, $340,500 for money she received for acts of prostitution, and accrued interest.
In declining to make the award as to the prostitution earnings under Penal Code 1202.4(p), which does not expressly authorize restitution for a victim’s labor where that labor is itself proscribed by law, the court stated: “public policy arguments favor H.B.’s position, but … public policy decisions are for the legislature.” The court of appeal vacated, citing the statutory language: “Upon conviction for a violation of [s]ection 236.1, the court shall … order the defendant to pay restitution to the victim in a case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant's conduct.” The court also noted that the law contemplates measuring restitution by the defendant's profit.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.