By Abigail Soler
On Tuesday morning the lingering restitution hearing in the Michael Bassett case came to a close. The judge denied the victim’s request for $9,057, and concluded by awarding slightly more than $2,500.
On February 14 of last year, Bassett approached a car on the shoulder of I-80, in Davis, and unsuccessfully attempted to carjack a woman.
Bassett yelled for the woman to exit the car, and said that he was taking the vehicle. However, he was unsuccessful because the driver took the keys out of the vehicle when she exited.
Bassett pleaded on April 24 of 2015, and was sentenced in May of 2015. He was sentenced to an 18-month prison term for the attempted carjacking.
The original restitution hearing was set in June. Since then, the case has been to court eight times. The victim testified in August. In addition, both she and the front seat passenger filed claims to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board.
Tuesday’s hearing did not mention the victim’s previous request of money for a car accident. A few months after the crime, the victim crashed into a UPS truck, in which she attempted to blame the stress of the carjacking for the accident.
She additionally requested restitution for dental work. The victim reasoned this request by explaining an onset clenching of her teeth since the event occurred. Both requests were previously denied.
The Victim Compensation Board and the attorneys conducted extensive research of all the out-of-pocket expenses following the crime. The Victim Compensation Board reached a conclusion in the amount of $1,917.26 for the victim.
On Tuesday morning the victim made a statement in court. In this statement, she detailed the disturbance this event has caused her life. The victim expressed feelings of vulnerability, tension and fear as a result of the carjacking.
The victim of the crime requested over $9,000 in restitution for a variety of expenses. The court was provided with a very detailed, spreadsheet-like document, outlining every cost she has endured as a result of dealing with the crime.
The victim took three months off work following the event, thus using all of her disability, vacation and sick pay.
The expenses in the desired restitution ranged widely and included mileage to doctors’ and other appointments, the courthouse and the department of corrections, and expenses for therapeutic yoga and physician sessions. The request also included restitution for the lost accrued days at work.
The victim made an unusual request – for the court to consider providing restitution for the replacement of her vehicle. She argued that the amount of time she spends in her car is significant, and it is difficult for her to be in the car without having vivid flashbacks to the crime.
The victim wanted the court to consider this request in making the final decision because she often stalls or clenches up at the sight of strangers walking past while she is in the vehicle. She oddly noted that, if replacing her car was unreasonable, the court consider providing her with a rental car.
To further accommodate and comfort the victim, she requested compensation for installation of surveillance cameras at her home.
Deputy Public Defender Richard Van Zandt argued against a portion of her requests, arguing to settle on a number similar to what the victim’s board concluded. He reiterated that he trusts the professionals who deal with restitution cases daily.
Van Zandt argued that the victim’s board did not see the accrual loss as an out-of-pocket expense, thus it should not be considered in the restitution. Van Zandt was strongly opposed to, and fought to exclude, a $99 massage and a $15 yoga pass from the total.
Deputy District Attorney Jared Favero was supportive of the victim’s statement and her full restitution request.
Judge Paul Richardson and counsel talked at sidebar throughout the morning, discussing the items listed on the victim’s request for reimbursement and future expenses.
Van Zandt was willing to settle on the number presented by the victim’s board, plus an additional $510.20. This additional money included reimbursement for mileage, yoga and therapeutic sessions, and parking expenses.
Richardson questioned why the victim’s car needed to be replaced by the defendant, but acknowledged the fact that people are unaware of the trauma that they have not experienced.
Ultimately, the court concluded the hearing, with a fraction of what was requested from the victim. Judge Richardson denied the victim’s request to replace the car and install surveillance cameras in her home.
The court awarded the $1,917.26, recommended by the Victim Compensation Board, and an additional $624.20 was granted for therapeutic sessions and mileage compensation. In that number, the $99 massage and $15 yoga pass were included.
After the judge’s ruling, the victim questioned Richardson about whether or not she had a right to file an appeal.
