record of the restitution hearing in California

27 California opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2022 4 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
People v. Giordanogreen cal · 2007 · cited in 22 California opinions naming this issue, 2009–2022 2 sentences 2022(Luis M. v. Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 300, 305 ; People v. Trout-Lacy, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at p. 373; People v. Grundfor (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 22, 27 .) “No abuse of discretion occurs if the restitution order is supported by a rational and factual basis.” (People v. Aguilar (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 857, 862 ; see People v. Millard, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 26 [“‘“‘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.’”’”].) “To facilitate appellate review of the trial court’s re 2022“To facilitate appellate review of the trial court’s restitution order, the trial court must take care to make a record of the restitution hearing, analyze the evidence presented, and make a clear statement of the calculation method used and how that method justifies the amount ordered.” (People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 664 .) At the hearing, the trial court expressly found only the $44,478 for the boat and trailer was “sustained by the evidence.” It also clearly signified that it did not wish to include the cost of the shopping trip in the restitution order, finding the $5,000 for s	6	22
People v. Smithgreen calctapp · 2011 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2021–2022 2 sentences 2022To facilitate appellate review of the trial court’s restitution order, the trial court must take care to make a record of the restitution hearing, analyze the evidence presented, and make a clear statement of the calculation method used and how that method justifies the amount ordered.” (Id. at pp. 663-664.) Noneconomic damages are “ ‘subjective, non-monetary losses including, but not limited to, pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental suffering, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, injury to reputation and humiliation.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Smith (2011) 2021To facilitate appellate review of the trial court’s restitution order, the trial court must take care to make a record of the restitution hearing, analyze the evidence presented, and make a clear statement of the calculation method used and how that method justifies the amount ordered.” (Id. at pp. 663–664, italics added.) Noneconomic damages are “‘subjective, non-monetary losses including, but not limited to, pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental suffering, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, injury to reputation and humiliation.’ [Citation.]” (People v	2	2
People v. Millardgreen calctapp · 2009 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2014–2022 2 sentences 2022(Luis M. v. Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 300, 305 ; People v. Trout-Lacy, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at p. 373; People v. Grundfor (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 22, 27 .) “No abuse of discretion occurs if the restitution order is supported by a rational and factual basis.” (People v. Aguilar (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 857, 862 ; see People v. Millard, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 26 [“‘“‘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.’”’”].) “To facilitate appellate review of the trial court’s re 2014(Id. at p. 666.) Defendant’s trial counsel argued that “the legislature did not intend to authorize criminal sentencing courts to order direct restitution for” “anticipated economic support.” Counsel argued that, in lieu of restitution, the surviving spouse could resort to “a civil action for wrongful death” or “an application to the Restitution Fund.” This argument had been rejected in Giordano, which had agreed in principle that, although section 1202.4 “does not itself provide guidelines for calculating the economic loss that a surviving spouse incurs,” the spouse is entitled to receive “ ‘	1	2
People v. Holmberggreen calctapp · 2011 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016While it is not required to make an order in keeping with the exact amount of loss, the trial court must use a rational method that could reasonably be said to make the victim whole, and may not make an order which is arbitrary or capricious.” ’ [Citation.] ‘ “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.” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Holmberg (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1320 [ 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 878 ].) “To facilitate appellate review of the trial court’s restitution order, the trial 2016While it is not required to make an order in keeping with the exact amount of loss, the trial court must use a rational method that could reasonably be said to make the victim whole, and may not make an order which is arbitrary or capricious.” ’ [Citation.] ‘ “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.” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Holmberg (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1320 [ 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 878 ].) “To facilitate appellate review of the trial court’s restitution order, the trial	1	2
People v. KEICHLERgreen calctapp · 2005 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022(Luis M. v. Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 300, 305 ; People v. Trout-Lacy, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at p. 373; People v. Grundfor (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 22, 27 .) “No abuse of discretion occurs if the restitution order is supported by a rational and factual basis.” (People v. Aguilar (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 857, 862 ; see People v. Millard, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 26 [“‘“‘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.’”’”].) “To facilitate appellate review of the trial court’s re	1	1
People v. Andersongreen cal · 2010 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014(People v. Giordano, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 663, fn. 7 ; see People v. Anderson (2010) 50 Cal.4th 19, 26-27 .) This is because Penal Code section 1203.1, subdivision (j) grants the trial court broad discretion in imposing conditions of probation, including restitution.	1	1
People v. Jesseegreen calctapp · 2013 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014To facilitate appellate review of the trial court’s restitution order, the trial court must take care to make a record of the restitution hearing, analyze the evidence presented, and make a clear statement of the calculation method used and how that method justifies the amount ordered.” (People v. Giordano, supra, 42 Cal.4th at pp. 663-664; accord, People v. Jessee, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 507 ; People v. Petronella, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 969 .) When, as here, the restitution order is a condition of probation, the trial court’s discretion is even broader.	1	1
People v. Jonesgreen calctapp · 2010 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013To facilitate appellate review of the trial court’s restitution order, the trial court must take care to make a record of the restitution hearing, analyze the evidence presented, and make a clear statement of the calculation method used and how that method justifies the amount ordered.” ( Giordano, supra, at pp. 663–664; accord, People v. Jones (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 418, 423 (Jones).) In the present case, the trial court did not make a clear statement of its calculation method.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (13)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Akins green calctapp · 2005 2 sentences 2013To facilitate appellate review of the trial court‟s restitution order, the trial court must take care to make a record of the restitution hearing, analyze the evidence presented, and make a clear statement of the calculation method used and how that method justifies the amount ordered.” (Id. at pp. 663-664.) “The point is to show the award is the product of a „reasonable‟ method and produces a „nonarbitrary result.‟” (People v. Pangan 9 (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 574, 579 , citing People v. Giordano, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 665 .) “No abuse of discretion is shown simply because the order does not 2013To facilitate appellate review of the trial court’s restitution order, the trial court must take care to make a record of the restitution hearing, analyze the evidence presented, and make a clear statement of the calculation method used and how that method justifies the amount ordered.” (People v. Giordano, supra, 42 Cal.4th at pp. 663-664, fn. omitted.) “The order must be affirmed if there is a factual and rational basis for the amount. [Citation.]” (People v. Akins, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 1382 .) As for defendant’s insufficiency of the evidence claim, we have previously rejected it.	4	2013–2013
People v. Gemelli green calctapp · 2008 2 sentences 2016(See People v. Gemelli (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1542 .) The trial court may accept, as prima facie evidence of loss, a property owner’s statement about the value of damaged property. 2013(People v. Gemelli, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at p. 1542 .) “To facilitate appellate review of the trial court’s restitution order, the trial court must take care to make a record of the restitution hearing, analyze the evidence presented, and make a clear statement of the calculation method used and how that method justifies the amount ordered.” (People v. Giordano, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 664 .) The superior court did just that here.	2	2013–2016
People v. Scott green cal · 1994 2 sentences 2016Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f).) Defendant did not object to the restitution order in the trial court. “[C]omplaints about the manner in which the trial court exercises its sentencing discretion and articulates its supporting reasons cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 356 .) This forfeiture rule also applies to restitution orders. 2016As the People correctly argue, defendant is not challenging whether direct victim restitution could or should have been awarded, but rather she is challenging the amount of that award. “[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.” (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 .) The direct victim restitution in question was not unauthorized in a jurisdictional sense.	2	2016–2016
People v. Aguilar green calctapp · 2016 1 sentence 2022(Luis M. v. Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 300, 305 ; People v. Trout-Lacy, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at p. 373; People v. Grundfor (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 22, 27 .) “No abuse of discretion occurs if the restitution order is supported by a rational and factual basis.” (People v. Aguilar (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 857, 862 ; see People v. Millard, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 26 [“‘“‘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.’”’”].) “To facilitate appellate review of the trial court’s re	1	2022–2022
People v. Grundfor green calctapp5d · 2019 1 sentence 2022(Luis M. v. Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 300, 305 ; People v. Trout-Lacy, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at p. 373; People v. Grundfor (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 22, 27 .) “No abuse of discretion occurs if the restitution order is supported by a rational and factual basis.” (People v. Aguilar (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 857, 862 ; see People v. Millard, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 26 [“‘“‘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.’”’”].) “To facilitate appellate review of the trial court’s re	1	2022–2022
Luis M. v. Superior Court green cal · 2014 1 sentence 2022(Luis M. v. Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 300, 305 ; People v. Trout-Lacy, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at p. 373; People v. Grundfor (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 22, 27 .) “No abuse of discretion occurs if the restitution order is supported by a rational and factual basis.” (People v. Aguilar (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 857, 862 ; see People v. Millard, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 26 [“‘“‘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.’”’”].) “To facilitate appellate review of the trial court’s re	1	2022–2022
People v. Gross green calctapp · 2015 1 sentence 2022The Trial Court Erred in Ordering Earl To Pay $5,000 in Victim Restitution Without Any Factual Basis A victim of a crime has a constitutional right to restitution that “cannot be bargained away or limited.” (People v. Gross (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1318 ; see People v. Giordano, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 652 [“‘It is the unequivocal intention of the People of the State of California that all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to restitution from the persons convicted of the crimes for losses they suffer.’”]; see also Cal. Const., art.	1	2022–2022
People v. RUBICS green calctapp · 2006 1 sentence 2016(People v. Mearns (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 493, 498 .) “Trial courts have broad discretion to order victim restitution and such an order will not be reversed if there is a ‘factual and rational basis for the amount of restitution.’ ” (People v. Rubics (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 452, 462 .) Although the trial court “is not required to make an order in keeping with the exact amount of loss, the trial court must use a rational method that could reasonably be said to make the victim whole, and may not make an order which is arbitrary or capricious.” (People v. Thygesen (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 988, 992 .) “	1	2016–2016
People v. Mearns green calctapp · 2002 1 sentence 2016(People v. Mearns (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 493, 498 .) “Trial courts have broad discretion to order victim restitution and such an order will not be reversed if there is a ‘factual and rational basis for the amount of restitution.’ ” (People v. Rubics (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 452, 462 .) Although the trial court “is not required to make an order in keeping with the exact amount of loss, the trial court must use a rational method that could reasonably be said to make the victim whole, and may not make an order which is arbitrary or capricious.” (People v. Thygesen (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 988, 992 .) “	1	2016–2016
People v. Thygesen green calctapp · 1999 1 sentence 2016(People v. Mearns (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 493, 498 .) “Trial courts have broad discretion to order victim restitution and such an order will not be reversed if there is a ‘factual and rational basis for the amount of restitution.’ ” (People v. Rubics (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 452, 462 .) Although the trial court “is not required to make an order in keeping with the exact amount of loss, the trial court must use a rational method that could reasonably be said to make the victim whole, and may not make an order which is arbitrary or capricious.” (People v. Thygesen (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 988, 992 .) “	1	2016–2016
People v. Carbajal green cal · 1995 1 sentence 2014(People v. Carbajal, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1125 .) 2.	1	2014–2014
P. v. Petronella CA4/3 green calctapp · 2013 1 sentence 2014To facilitate appellate review of the trial court’s restitution order, the trial court must take care to make a record of the restitution hearing, analyze the evidence presented, and make a clear statement of the calculation method used and how that method justifies the amount ordered.” (People v. Giordano, supra, 42 Cal.4th at pp. 663-664; accord, People v. Jessee, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 507 ; People v. Petronella, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 969 .) When, as here, the restitution order is a condition of probation, the trial court’s discretion is even broader.	1	2014–2014
People v. Pangan green calctapp · 2013 1 sentence 2013To facilitate appellate review of the trial court‟s restitution order, the trial court must take care to make a record of the restitution hearing, analyze the evidence presented, and make a clear statement of the calculation method used and how that method justifies the amount ordered.” (Id. at pp. 663-664.) “The point is to show the award is the product of a „reasonable‟ method and produces a „nonarbitrary result.‟” (People v. Pangan 9 (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 574, 579 , citing People v. Giordano, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 665 .) “No abuse of discretion is shown simply because the order does not	1	2013–2013

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CA § Cal. Penal Code § 1202.4 (12) CA § Cal. Evidence Code § 915 (3) CA § Cal. Evidence Code § 952 (3) CA § Cal. Insurance Code § 11880 (3) CA § Cal. Penal Code § 186.11 (3) CA § Cal. Penal Code § 26 (3) CA § Cal. Penal Code § 654 (3) CA § Cal. Penal Code § 801.5 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 27 (2009–2022) LA 2 (2019–2019)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check