Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 California opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2024 2 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. Brasuregreen2 sentences2024Defendant contends the evidence introduced at trial does not support such an inference, “[b]ut by his failure to object, defendant forfeited any claim that the order was merely unwarranted by the evidence, as distinct from being unauthorized by statute.” (People v. Brasure (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1037, 1075 ; accord People v. Mays, supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 1237 [“(1) this is not a question of law and (2) defendant could have, but did not, challenge the factual basis for the restitution order in the trial court”].) “As the order for restitution was within the sentencing court’s statutory authority 2024(See People v. Brasure, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 1075 [“As the order for restitution was within the sentencing court’s statutory authority, and defendant neither raised an objection to the amount of the order nor requested a hearing to determine it [citation], we do not decide whether the court abused its discretion in determining the amount.”].) 20. | 4 | 7 |
People v. Maysgreen2 sentences2024Defendant contends the evidence introduced at trial does not support such an inference, “[b]ut by his failure to object, defendant forfeited any claim that the order was merely unwarranted by the evidence, as distinct from being unauthorized by statute.” (People v. Brasure (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1037, 1075 ; accord People v. Mays, supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 1237 [“(1) this is not a question of law and (2) defendant could have, but did not, challenge the factual basis for the restitution order in the trial court”].) “As the order for restitution was within the sentencing court’s statutory authority 2020(People v. Brasure, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 1075 [defendant forfeited challenge to victim restitution order where he “neither raised an objection to the amount of the order nor requested a hearing to determine it”]; People v. Mays (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1232, 1237 [“A defendant wishing to argue on appeal that there is no factual basis for a restitution order must object on that ground in the trial court to preserve the issue for appeal.”].) DISPOSITION Gonzalez’s conviction of sodomy (count 2) is vacated, and the judgment is affirmed as modified. | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Smith
green
2 sentences2008But by his failure to object, defendant forfeited any claim that the order was merely unwarranted by the evidence, as distinct from being unauthorized by statute. ( People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852 , 102 Cal. Rptr.2d 731 , 14 P.3d 942 .) As the order for restitution was within the sentencing court's statutory authority, and defendant neither raised an objection to the amount of the order nor requested a hearing to determine it (see § 1202.4, subd. (f)(1)), we do not decide whether the court abused its discretion in determining the amount. 2008But by his failure to object, defendant forfeited any claim that the order was merely unwarranted by the evidence, as distinct from being unauthorized by statute. ( People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852 , 102 Cal. Rptr.2d 731 , 14 P.3d 942 .) As the order for restitution was within the sentencing court's statutory authority, and defendant neither raised an objection to the amount of the order nor requested a hearing to determine it (see § 1202.4, subd. (f)(1)), we do not decide whether the court abused its discretion in determining the amount. | 2 | 2008–2015 |
People v. Garcia
green
1 sentence2020(People v. Brasure (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1037, 1075 (Brasure); People v. Garcia (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1203, 1218 ; People v. Gibson (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1466 , 1468– 1469 [restitution fine].) In Brasure, the defendant had challenged a restitution order on the ground the victim’s loss “was not shown by documentation or sworn testimony.” (Id. at p. 1075.) In holding the defendant had not preserved the contention for appeal, our high court stated: “[B]y his failure to object, defendant forfeited any claim that the order was merely unwarranted by the evidence, as distinct from being unauthorized by | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Gibson
green
1 sentence2020(People v. Brasure (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1037, 1075 (Brasure); People v. Garcia (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1203, 1218 ; People v. Gibson (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1466 , 1468– 1469 [restitution fine].) In Brasure, the defendant had challenged a restitution order on the ground the victim’s loss “was not shown by documentation or sworn testimony.” (Id. at p. 1075.) In holding the defendant had not preserved the contention for appeal, our high court stated: “[B]y his failure to object, defendant forfeited any claim that the order was merely unwarranted by the evidence, as distinct from being unauthorized by | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In Re KF
green
1 sentence2013In People v. Brasure (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1037 , the defendant challenged a victim restitution order on the ground that the victim‟s loss “was not shown by documentation or sworn testimony.” (Id. at p. 1075) In holding that the defendant had not preserved the contention for appeal, our Supreme Court stated: “[B]y his failure to object, defendant forfeited any claim that the order was merely unwarranted by the evidence, as distinct from being unauthorized by statute. [Citation.] As the order for restitution was within the sentencing court‟s statutory authority, and defendant neither raised an obje | 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.