12 California opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2023 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Smithgreen2 sentences2023The restitution hearing . . . is a criminal sentencing hearing, not a civil trial.” (People v. Smith (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 415, 434 .) Further, the California Constitution generally provides that “[t]rial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all . . . .” (Cal. Const., art. 2022(People v. 10 Smith, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at pp. 433-434.) This court explained “[t]he restitution hearing, whether for economic or noneconomic damages, is a criminal sentencing hearing, not a civil trial.” (Id. at p. 434.) Defendant not only fails to identify and recognize the ruling in Smith in his opening brief, but also fails to present any credible argument warranting reconsideration of that opinion. | 2 | 11 |
People v. Dehlegreen2 sentences2013(See People v. Dehle (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1380, 1386, 1389 [“[r]estitution hearings held pursuant to section 1202.4 are sentencing hearings and are thus hearings which are a significant part of a criminal prosecution,” and the “goals of a restitution hearing . . . can only be accomplished with the participation of the district attorney acting in accordance with his responsibilities to the criminal justice system”]; see also People v. Smith (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 415, 434 [“[t]he restitution hearing, whether for economic or noneconomic damages, is a criminal sentencing hearing, not a civil tr 2013(See People v. Dehle (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1380, 1386, 1389 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 461 ] [“[Restitution hearings held pursuant to section 1202.4 are sentencing hearings and are thus hearings which are a significant part of a criminal prosecution,” and the “goals of a restitution hearing . . . can only be accomplished with the participation of the district attorney acting in accordance with his responsibilities to the criminal justice system”]; see also People v. Smith (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 415, 434 [ 129 Cal.Rptr.3d 910 ] [“[t]he restitution hearing, whether for economic or noneconomic damages, is | 2 | 3 |
People v. KEICHLERgreen1 sentence2021(People v. Smith (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 415, 434 .) “ ‘[A] hearing to establish the amount of restitution does not require the formalities of other phases of a criminal prosecution.’ ” (People v. Keichler (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1048 (Keichler); People v. Kelly (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 1172 , 1181 (Kelly).) The defendant is not entitled to a jury, and “ ‘[i]n determining the propriety and amount of restitution, the preponderance of the evidence standard satisfies due process.’ ” (Smith, at p. 433.) Indeed, “[s]ection 1202.4 does not, by its terms, require any particular kind of proof.” (Peop | 1 | 1 |
People v. Phugreen1 sentence2021(People v. Smith (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 415, 434 .) “ ‘[A] hearing to establish the amount of restitution does not require the formalities of other phases of a criminal prosecution.’ ” (People v. Keichler (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1048 (Keichler); People v. Kelly (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 1172 , 1181 (Kelly).) The defendant is not entitled to a jury, and “ ‘[i]n determining the propriety and amount of restitution, the preponderance of the evidence standard satisfies due process.’ ” (Smith, at p. 433.) Indeed, “[s]ection 1202.4 does not, by its terms, require any particular kind of proof.” (Peop | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bernalgreen1 sentence2021A restitution order pursuant to a defendant’s plea is an agreement between the defendant and the state. [Citation.] The victim is not party to the agreement, and a release by the victim cannot act to release a defendant from his financial debt to the state any more than it could terminate his prison sentence.” (People v. Bernal (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 155, 162 (Bernal).) 9 A restitution hearing is not a civil trial, but a criminal sentencing hearing which lacks the formality of a trial. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2023I, § 16.) With respect to civil trials, “[g]enerally, ‘if the action is essentially one in equity and the relief sought “depends upon the application of equitable doctrines,” the parties are not entitled to a jury trial.’ ” (People v. ConAgra Grocery Products Co. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 51, 121 , italics added.) As a general matter, restitution is a remedy available in an equitable action (see People v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 283, 286 ) to which there is no right to a jury trial. 2021I, § 16.) Regarding civil trials, “[g]enerally, ‘if the action is essentially one in equity and the relief sought “depends upon the application of equitable doctrines,” the parties are not entitled to a jury trial.’ [Citation.]” (People v. ConAgra Grocery Products Co. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 51, 121 , italics added.) Generally, restitution is a remedy available in an equitable action (see People v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 283, 286 ), to which there is no right to a jury trial. | 2 | 2021–2023 |
People v. Conagra Grocery Prods. Co.
green
2 sentences2023I, § 16.) With respect to civil trials, “[g]enerally, ‘if the action is essentially one in equity and the relief sought “depends upon the application of equitable doctrines,” the parties are not entitled to a jury trial.’ ” (People v. ConAgra Grocery Products Co. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 51, 121 , italics added.) As a general matter, restitution is a remedy available in an equitable action (see People v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 283, 286 ) to which there is no right to a jury trial. 2021I, § 16.) Regarding civil trials, “[g]enerally, ‘if the action is essentially one in equity and the relief sought “depends upon the application of equitable doctrines,” the parties are not entitled to a jury trial.’ [Citation.]” (People v. ConAgra Grocery Products Co. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 51, 121 , italics added.) Generally, restitution is a remedy available in an equitable action (see People v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 283, 286 ), to which there is no right to a jury trial. | 2 | 2021–2023 |
People v. Gemelli
green
2 sentences2021(People v. Smith (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 415, 434 .) “ ‘[A] hearing to establish the amount of restitution does not require the formalities of other phases of a criminal prosecution.’ ” (People v. Keichler (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1048 (Keichler); People v. Kelly (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 1172 , 1181 (Kelly).) The defendant is not entitled to a jury, and “ ‘[i]n determining the propriety and amount of restitution, the preponderance of the evidence standard satisfies due process.’ ” (Smith, at p. 433.) Indeed, “[s]ection 1202.4 does not, by its terms, require any particular kind of proof.” (Peop 2021(People v. Smith (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 415, 434 .) “ ‘[A] hearing to establish the amount of restitution does not require the formalities of other phases of a criminal prosecution.’ ” (People v. Keichler (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1048 (Keichler); People v. Kelly (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 1172 , 1181 (Kelly).) The defendant is not entitled to a jury, and “ ‘[i]n determining the propriety and amount of restitution, the preponderance of the evidence standard satisfies due process.’ ” (Smith, at p. 433.) Indeed, “[s]ection 1202.4 does not, by its terms, require any particular kind of proof.” (Peop | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Cornette v. Department of Transportation
green
1 sentence2017The court’s restitution order did not deny defendant any right to a jury trial under the California Constitution.13 13 The “right to a jury trial is the right as it existed at common law, when the state Constitution was first adopted.” (Cornette v. Department of Transportation (2001) 26 Cal.4th 63 , 75–76.) Recently our Supreme Court held that Apprendi’s Sixth Amendment jury right did not apply to sex offender registration and residency requirements because these are “modern regulatory sentencing imperatives” and, therefore, the jury did not play any traditional role regarding these matters at | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Narron
green
2 sentences2014That rational reason is that the restitution order is part of criminal sentencing.” ( Smith, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th 415, 433-434 .) Although defendant attacks Smith, that decision goes back to People v. Narron, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d 724 for the proposition that the state jury guarantee does not extend to restitution. 2014That rational reason is that the restitution order is part of criminal sentencing.” ( Smith, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th 415, 433-434 .) Although defendant attacks Smith, that decision goes back to People v. Narron, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d 724 for the proposition that the state jury guarantee does not extend to restitution. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Cain
green
1 sentence2013(See People v. Smith, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 434 .) A criminal defendant does not have a Sixth Amendment right to confrontation during a restitution hearing. ( Cain, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at pp. 86-87.) Appellant was not entitled to confront and cross-examine witnesses. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.
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.