What is the test for determining whether a defendant has been convicted of a crime and sentenced to time spent in prison or jail?

"When judgment is imposed and the defendant sentenced to a period of incarceration (in prison or jail), the court may order restitution only for losses arising out of the 'criminal conduct for which the defendant has been convicted.' [Citations.]" (People v. Walker (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1274; People v. Woods (2008)

Page 7

161 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1049 [limiting restitution in this context "to those losses arising out of the criminal activity that formed the basis of the conviction"].) California courts have adopted the "substantial factor" test for analyzing causal connections in this regard. Under that standard, a cause in fact is something that is a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. (Mitchell v. Gonzales (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1041, 1052-1053.) "Not only does the substantial factor instruction assist in the resolution of the problem of independent causes . . . but '[i]t aids in the disposition . . . of two other types of situations which have proved troublesome. One is that where a similar, but not identical result would have followed without the defendant's act; the other where one defendant has made a clearly proved but quite insignificant contribution to the result, as where he throws a lighted match into a forest fire. But in the great majority of cases, it produces the same legal conclusion as the but-for test.' [Citation.]" (Id. at pp. 1052-1053.)