People v. Cain (2000)

We reject the decisions holding otherwise, which have long since been repeatedly disapproved of, both expressly and impliedly. ( Foster, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at pp. 943-947; In re S.S. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 543, 546-547 ; People v. Cain (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 81, 87-88 [Court properly relied on hearsay evidence contained in probation officer’s report in awarding victim restitution]; Keichler, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p.1048 [impliedly 14 disagreeing with Harvest]; People v.…

“Due process is satisfied if [defendant] is given notice 7 of the amount sought and a hearing to contest that amount.” (People v. Thygesen (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 988, 993 .) “ ‘The scope of a criminal defendant’s due process rights at a hearing to determine the amount of restitution is very limited: “ ‘A defendant’s due process rights are protected when the probation report gives notice of the amount of restitution claimed . . . , and the defendant has an opportunity to chall…

However, the trial court is entitled to consider the probation report, and, as prima facie evidence of loss, may accept a property owner’s statement made in the probation report about the value of stolen or damaged property.’ [Citations.] ‘ “This is so because a hearing to establish the amount of restitution does not require the formalities of other phases of a criminal prosecution. [Citation.] When the probation report includes information on the amount of the victim’s loss…

(People v. Cain (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 81, 87 (Cain).) There is no requirement the victim testify.

The burden is on you to show me that some of these were noneconomic losses. [¶] But third-party tortfeasors, I don’t think it’s appropriate to go there.” 17 (In re Jonathan V. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 236, 241 .) “The scope of a criminal defendant’s due process rights at a hearing to determine the amount of restitution is very limited: ‘ “A defendant’s due process rights are protected when the probation report gives notice of the amount of restitution claimed . . . , and the de…

(See, e.g., In re T.C. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 837, 848 ; People v. Cain (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 81, 87, 88-89 ; People v. Hove (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1266, 1275 .) Section 730.6, which governs restitution in juvenile proceedings, contains no such language, however.

(People v. Wilen (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 270 , 286–287 (Wilen); People v. Sanchez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1411, 1414 ; § 977, subd. (b).) Restitution hearings are “part and parcel of the sentencing process” (People v. Cain (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 81, 87 (Cain)), 2 and are thus a significant part of a criminal case.

(People v. Goulart (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 71, 83 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 477 ].) We find unpersuasive defendants’ suggestion that the court’s exclusion of the juror statements and declarations deprived them of “the full and fair opportunity to test the basis for the restitution order as mandated by law.” “The scope of a criminal defendant’s due process rights at a hearing to determine the amount of restitution is very limited: ‘ “A defendant’s due process rights are protected when th…

(People v. Weatherton, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at p. 684 ; People v. Prosser (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 682, 692 (Prosser); People v. Cain (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 81, 87 (Cain).) “The scope of a criminal defendant's due process rights at a hearing to determine the amount of restitution is very limited: ‘ “A defendant’s due process rights are protected when [he or she has] notice of the amount of restitution claimed . . . , and . . . has an opportunity to challenge the figures . . .…

(People v. Cain (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 81, 86 [concerning restitution as a condition of probation].) “[N]umerous courts have held that restitution hearings require fewer due process protections than civil hearings or criminal hearings of guilt.” (Giordano, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 662, fn. 6 .) “The scope of a criminal defendant’s due process rights at a hearing to determine the amount of restitution is very limited.” (Cain, at p. 86.) Restitution hearings are intended to be “…

“The scope of a criminal defendant’s due process rights at a hearing to determine the amount of restitution is very limited: ‘ “A defendant’s due process rights are protected when the probation report gives notice of the amount of restitution claimed . . . , and the defendant has an opportunity to challenge the figures in the probation report at the sentencing hearing.” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Cain (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 81, 86 (Cain).) Repeatedly, California courts have h…

(See People v. Cain (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 81, 86, 87 [“[t]he scope of a criminal defendant’s due process rights at a hearing to determine the amount of restitution is very limited”; “[t]he trial court violates the defendant’s due process right at a hearing to determine the amount of restitution if the hearing procedures are fundamentally unfair”]; see also People v. Giordano, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 662, fn. 6 [“numerous courts have held that restitution hearings require few…

“California courts have repeatedly held that the defendant does not have a Sixth Amendment right of confrontation at the sentencing stage of a criminal prosecution.” (People v. Cain (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 81, 86 (Cain).) Restitution hearings are part of the sentencing process.

(People v. Cain (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 81, 85-89 [restitution for victim’s counseling under § 273.5].) Likewise, they have accepted a victim’s unsworn written itemization of losses as prima facie evidence of the loss.

(Millard, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 42 .) Generally, a “trial court violates the defendant’s due process right at a hearing to determine the amount of restitution [only when] the hearing procedures are fundamentally unfair. [Citation.]” (People v. Cain (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 81, 87 (Cain).) Here, appellant received notice of the amount of restitution claimed at the sentencing hearing; he sought, and was granted, a subsequent hearing on the issue of restitution.

I, § 15 ["The defendant in a criminal cause has the right . . . to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf"].) At its core, compulsory process secures "the right to the government's assistance in compelling the attendance of favorable witnesses at trial . . . ." (Pennsylvania v. Ritchie (1987) 480 U.S. 39, 56 (Ritchie), italics added.) Compulsory process complements the right to confrontation (Washington v. Texas (1967) 388 U.S. 14, 19 (Washington)), which i…

Nevertheless, “The defendant has the right to a hearing before a judge to dispute the determination of the amount of restitution . . . .” (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)(1).) A defendant has the right to be present at the restitution hearing unless he waives the right to be present. (§ 977, subd. (b)(1); People v. Wilen (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 270, 286-287 [right to be present at sentencing]; People v. Cain (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 81, 87 [restitution hearing is part of sentencing].) Accor…

Nevertheless, “The defendant has the right to a hearing before a judge to dispute the determination of the amount of restitution . . . .” (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)(1).) A defendant has the right to be present at the restitution hearing unless he waives the right to be present. (§ 977, subd. (b)(1); People v. Wilen (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 270, 286-287 [right to be present at sentencing]; People v. Cain (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 81, 87 [restitution hearing is part of sentencing].) Accor…

(See People v. Cain (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 81, 87 (Cain).) Under these standards, our fundamental inquiry is whether Swain has carried his burden to establish prejudice in that his physical presence at the September 16, 2011 hearing bore " ' " 'a reasonable and substantial relation to his full opportunity to defend 4 against the charges.' " ' " (Virgil, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 1234 .) When this standard is not met, "a defendant is not entitled to be personally present either …

App. LEXIS 77 , decided February 18, 2009) (unpublished); 2 People v. Cain, 82 Cal.App.4th 81, 87 (I) ( 97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 836 ) (2000); State v. Alspach, 554 NW2d 882, 883 (II) (Iowa 1996); State v. Muhammed, 250 P3d 844 (Kan.

App. LEXIS 77 , decided February 18, 2009) (unpublished)2; People v. Cain, 82 Cal. App. 4th 81, 87 (I) ( 97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 836 ) (2000); State v. Alspach, 554 N.W.2d 882, 883 (II) (Iowa 1996); State v. Muhammed, 250 P.3d 844 (Kan.

Although a defendant’s due process rights are limited at a restitution hearing (People v. Cain (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 81, 86 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 836 ]) and trial courts have discretion regarding the formalities they follow and the evidence they consider at such hearings (People v. Keichler, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 1048 ; People v. Foster (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 939, 947 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 ], superseded by statute on another ground as noted in People v. Sexton (1995) 33 Cal.Ap…

J.) [“Pronouncement of judgment ... is a critical stage in the criminal prosecution when the constitutional rights ‘to appear and defend, in person and with counsel’ [citation] apply, and a judgment pronounced in violation of those rights can be attacked by habeas corpus.” (Italics added.)]; In re Levi (1952) 39 Cal.2d 41, 45 [ 244 P.2d 403 ] (maj. opn. of Traynor, J.) [“With certain exceptions not applicable here [citations], judgment and sentence in felony cases may be imp…

(People v. Foster, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 948 .) “The scope of a criminal defendant’s due process rights at a hearing to determine the amount of restitution is very limited: ‘ “A defendant’s due process rights are protected when [he or she has] notice of the amount of restitution claimed . . ., and . . . has an opportunity to challenge the figures . . . at the sentencing hearing.” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Cain (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 81, 86 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 836 ]; see a…

(See, e.g., Baumann, supra, 176 Cal.App.3d at pp. 79-81; People v. Rivera (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1153, 1160-1161 [ 261 Cal.Rptr. 93 ]; People v. Cain (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 81, 86 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 836 ].) Courts have premised this conclusion on the understanding that restitution hearings are sentencing hearings. ( Baumann, supra, 176 Cal.App.3d at pp. 80-81; Rivera, supra, 212 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1160-1161, citing Baumann, supra, 176 Cal.App.3d at pp. 80—81; Cain, supra, 82 Cal.…

(See People v. Grandpierre (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 111 , 115 [“A victim’s statement of economic loss is prima facie evidence of loss.”]; People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26 [“[A] prima facie case for restitution is made by the People based in part on a victim’s testimony on, or other claim or statement of, the amount of his or her economic loss.”]; see also People v. Kelly (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 1172 , 1183 (Kelly) [“A victim’s loss statement submitted to probation m…

(Lamb, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 683 .) Indeed, as our Supreme Court has declared, “ ‘In every felony proceeding in the State of California, a probation report is required and must be read and considered by the sentencing 13 judge. [Citation.] The Legislature does not require trial court judges to read and consider “unreliable” documents as a prerequisite to the imposition of sentence.’ ” (Otto, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 213 ; see Cain, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at pp. 87–88 [a …