Is a defendant entitled to a restitution fine as a condition of probation?

Moreover, the restitution fine levied on defendant in the instant case (unlike the restitution at issue in Stalheim and unlike the restitution contemplated by section 1203.1 as a condition of probation) does not provide direct reimbursement to a victim based upon the victim's losses or damages. (Compare 1203.1; People v. Richards

Page 672

As is common with the imposition of punishment in criminal cases, including fines, the restitution fine is based upon evidence at trial or, as in this case where defendant has admitted his guilt, upon circumstances set forth in the probation report. Neither the state nor federal Constitution precludes a trial court from considering matters in a probation report for the purpose of arriving at an appropriate punishment. (See People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749, 753-754, 150 Cal.Rptr. 778, 587 P.2d 220; compare People v. Stanley (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 144, 207 Cal.Rptr. 258.)

[166 Cal.App.3d 816] Defendant's counsel reviewed the probation report at issue prior to the sentencing hearing. Defendant makes no contention that, in setting the amount of the fine, the trial court relied on information to which defendant had no opportunity to respond with appropriate affirmative evidence. (Compare In re Calhoun (1976) 17 Cal.3d 75, 84, 130 Cal.Rptr. 139, 549 P.2d 1235; People v. Cervantes, supra, 154 Cal.App.3d at p. 358, 201 Cal.Rptr. 187.)