demonstrable error in California

2025(People v. Jennings (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 42, 49 .) We do not reweigh the evidence or make credibility decisions; we only “determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the inferences made by the trial court.” (People v. Baudoin (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 1184 , 1191(Baudoin).) “A victim’s restitution right is to be broadly and liberally construed.” ( Mearns, supra, at p. 500 .) “‘When there is a factual and rational basis for the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court, no abuse of discretion will be found by the reviewing court.’” (Id., at p. 499, citing People v. Dalvito (1

2023“We review a restitution order for abuse of discretion.” (People v. Mearns (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 493, 498 .) Abuse is established only if the trial court’s decision is arbitrary or capricious (People v. Akins (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1382 ) or is based on a demonstrable error of law (People v. Jennings (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 42, 49 ).

2024Had this been the only reason for declaring a mistrial, and the evidence confirmed other judges were available to conduct the trial, the finding of necessity would have been erroneous as a matter of law given the fact section 1053 “permits the midtrial substitution of judges in criminal cases.” (People v. Halvorsen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 379, 427 ; cf. T.P.B. v. Superior Court (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 881, 883, 886 [mistrial legally necessary where 29. [“[W]hen a trial court’s decision rests on an error of law, that decision is an abuse of discretion”]; People v. Cooper (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 731, 742

2023Had this been the only reason for declaring a mistrial, and the evidence confirmed other judges were available to conduct the trial, the finding of necessity would have been erroneous as a matter of law given the fact section 1053 “permits the midtrial substitution of judges in criminal cases.” (People v. Halvorsen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 379, 427 ; cf. 29. [“[W]hen a trial court’s decision rests on an error of law, that decision is an abuse of discretion”]; People v. Cooper (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 731, 742 [“A ruling resting on a demonstrable error of law constitutes an abuse of discretion”].) The s

2015The burden is on the party seeking restitution to provide an adequate factual basis for the claim.” (People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 664 .) “Once the prosecution has made a prima facie showing of the victim’s loss, ‘the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the amount of the loss is other than that claimed by the victim.’ [Citation.] [¶] On appeal, we review a 3 restitution award for abuse of discretion. [Citations.]” (People v. Jessee (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 501, 506-507 .) A trial court abuses its discretion when the order rests upon a demonstrable error of law or its f

2014(Giordano, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 663 .) However, an order predicated upon “a demonstrable error of law” constitutes an abuse of discretion in and of itself.

2025We review a restitution order for abuse of discretion (People v. Thygesen (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 988, 992 ), and an order based on a demonstrable error of law constitutes such an abuse.

1999I, § 28, subd. (b); 3 Witkin, Cal. Criminal Law (2d ed., 1999 supp.) Punishment for Crime, § 1325A, subd. (e), p. 45 [“[t]o the extent possible, the restitution order must be prepared by the sentencing court . . . and must be sufficient to fully reimburse the victim for every economic loss resulting from the defendant’s criminal conduct”].) The trial “court’s allocation of restitutionary responsibility must be sustained unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion or rests upon a demonstrable error of law.” (In re S.S. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 543, 550 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 768 ] [finding punitive and

2025(People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26 .) On appeal, “[w]e review a restitution order for abuse of discretion.” (People v. Mearns (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 493, 498 (Mearns).) Abuse is established only if the trial court’s decision is arbitrary or capricious (People v. Akins (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1382 ) or is based on a demonstrable error of law.

2023“We review a restitution order for abuse of discretion.” (People v. Mearns (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 493, 498 .) Abuse is established only if the trial court’s decision is arbitrary or capricious (People v. Akins (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1382 ) or is based on a demonstrable error of law (People v. Jennings (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 42, 49 ).

2025(People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26 .) On appeal, “[w]e review a restitution order for abuse of discretion.” (People v. Mearns (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 493, 498 (Mearns).) Abuse is established only if the trial court’s decision is arbitrary or capricious (People v. Akins (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1382 ) or is based on a demonstrable error of law.

2020The People respond the restitution order was a proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion because defendant’s “conduct was a substantial factor in causing Cal Fire’s economic losses.” (Capitalization omitted.) We review the trial court’s restitution order for abuse of discretion, and note that “a restitution order ‘resting upon “ ‘a demonstrable error of law’ ” constitutes an abuse of the court’s discretion.’ ” (People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26 .) The California Constitution provides that all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to

2020“However, where the specific issue is whether a court has the authority to issue restitution, we review that question of law independently. [Citation.] And where the specific issue is whether the court’s factual findings support restitution, we review those findings for substantial evidence. [Citations.]” (In re S.O. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1094, 1098 .) “No abuse of discretion will be found where there is a rational and factual basis for the amount of restitution ordered. ‘ “[T]he standard of proof at a restitution hearing is by a preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable dou

2015(See People v. Slattery (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1091, 1094-1096 [victim restitution to hospital which was not a “direct” victim was an unauthorized sentence].) “[T]he ‘unauthorized sentence’ concept constitutes a narrow exception to the general requirement that only those claims properly raised and preserved by the parties are reviewable on appeal. . . . [¶] Although the cases are varied, a sentence is generally ‘unauthorized’ where it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case.” (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 .) “We review the trial court’s restitut

2004DISCUSSION In determining whether it was error to deny restitution to the public agencies for their investigative costs, we are mindful that the trial court’s ruling “must be sustained unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion or rests upon a demonstrable error of law.” (In re S.S. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 543 , 550 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 768 ]; accord, People v. Draut (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 577, 581-582 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 469 ] (Draut).) *1076 We first consider whether such investigative costs were recoverable under the general restitution statute, Penal Code section 1202.4, which was cited as control

2004DISCUSSION In determining whether it was error to deny restitution to the public agencies for their investigative costs, we are mindful that the trial court’s ruling “must be sustained unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion or rests upon a demonstrable error of law.” (In re S.S. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 543 , 550 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 768 ]; accord, People v. Draut (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 577, 581-582 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 469 ] (Draut).) *1076 We first consider whether such investigative costs were recoverable under the general restitution statute, Penal Code section 1202.4, which was cited as control

1999I, § 28, subd. (b); 3 Witkin, Cal. Criminal Law (2d ed., 1999 supp.) Punishment for Crime, § 1325A, subd. (e), p. 45 [“[t]o the extent possible, the restitution order must be prepared by the sentencing court . . . and must be sufficient to fully reimburse the victim for every economic loss resulting from the defendant’s criminal conduct”].) The trial “court’s allocation of restitutionary responsibility must be sustained unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion or rests upon a demonstrable error of law.” (In re S.S. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 543, 550 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 768 ] [finding punitive and

1999I, § 28, subd. (b); 3 Witkin, Cal. Criminal Law (2d ed., 1999 supp.) Punishment for Crime, § 1325A, subd. (e), p. 45 [“[t]o the extent possible, the restitution order must be prepared by the sentencing court . . . and must be sufficient to fully reimburse the victim for every economic loss resulting from the defendant’s criminal conduct”].) The trial “court’s allocation of restitutionary responsibility must be sustained unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion or rests upon a demonstrable error of law.” (In re S.S. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 543, 550 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 768 ] [finding punitive and

2004DISCUSSION In determining whether it was error to deny restitution to the public agencies for their investigative costs, we are mindful that the trial court’s ruling “must be sustained unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion or rests upon a demonstrable error of law.” (In re S.S. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 543 , 550 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 768 ]; accord, People v. Draut (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 577, 581-582 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 469 ] (Draut).) *1076 We first consider whether such investigative costs were recoverable under the general restitution statute, Penal Code section 1202.4, which was cited as control

2004DISCUSSION In determining whether it was error to deny restitution to the public agencies for their investigative costs, we are mindful that the trial court’s ruling “must be sustained unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion or rests upon a demonstrable error of law.” (In re S.S. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 543 , 550 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 768 ]; accord, People v. Draut (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 577, 581-582 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 469 ] (Draut).) *1076 We first consider whether such investigative costs were recoverable under the general restitution statute, Penal Code section 1202.4, which was cited as control

2003"The trial `court's allocation of restitutionary responsibility must be sustained unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion or rests upon a demonstrable error of law.' [Citations.]" ( People v. Draut (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 577, 581-582 , 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 469 .) Section 1202.4 states: "(f) In every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant's conduct, the court shall *736 require that the defendant make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount established by court order, based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim or victims or any other showin

2003"The trial `court's allocation of restitutionary responsibility must be sustained unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion or rests upon a demonstrable error of law.' [Citations.]" ( People v. Draut (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 577, 581-582 , 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 469 .) Section 1202.4 states: "(f) In every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant's conduct, the court shall *736 require that the defendant make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount established by court order, based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim or victims or any other showin

2025(People v. Busser (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1503, 1508 (Busser).) Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f) states, “the court shall require that the defendant make restitution to the victim or victims” based on a showing of the victim’s economic loss.

2024(People v. Jennings (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 42, 49 .) If we find error, under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson), we then review to determine whether the trial court would have imposed the higher term regardless of the error. “[T]he question posed is whether, in the absence of the improperly considered sentencing factor(s), there is a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome for the appealing party— i.e., the imposition of a lesser sentence.” (People v. Falcon (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 911 , 941, review granted, Sept. 13, 2023, S281242 (Falcon); see People v. Avalos (1984

2024(People v. Jennings (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 42, 49 .) If we find error, under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson), we then review to determine whether the trial court would have imposed the higher term regardless of the error. “[T]he question posed is whether, in the absence of the improperly considered sentencing factor(s), there is a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome for the appealing party— i.e., the imposition of a lesser sentence.” (People v. Falcon (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 911 , 941, review granted, Sept. 13, 2023, S281242 (Falcon); see People v. Avalos (1984

2024(People v. Jennings (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 42, 49 .) If we find error, under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson), we then review to determine whether the trial court would have imposed the higher term regardless of the error. “[T]he question posed is whether, in the absence of the improperly considered sentencing factor(s), there is a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome for the appealing party— i.e., the imposition of a lesser sentence.” (People v. Falcon (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 911 , 941, review granted, Sept. 13, 2023, S281242 (Falcon); see People v. Avalos (1984

2024(People v. Jennings (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 42, 49 .) If we find error, under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson), we then review to determine whether the trial court would have imposed the higher term regardless of the error. “[T]he question posed is whether, in the absence of the improperly considered sentencing factor(s), there is a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome for the appealing party— i.e., the imposition of a lesser sentence.” (People v. Falcon (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 911 , 941, review granted, Sept. 13, 2023, S281242 (Falcon); see People v. Avalos (1984