What is the test for determining whether a defendant must pay restitution under section 1202.4 of the California Criminal Code when he is convicted as an accessory after the fact only?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Patala, F062148, Super. Ct. No. VCF242491 (Cal. App. 2012):
Another factor to consider is that courts have interpreted section 1202.4 as limiting restitution awards to those losses arising out of the criminal activity that formed the basis of the conviction. Thus, when a court imposes a prison sentence following trial, section 1202.4 limits the scope of victim restitution to losses caused by the criminal conduct for which the defendant sustained the conviction. (People v. Woods (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th
Page 6
1045, 1049 [defendant not required to pay restitution for economic loss resulting from murder when he was convicted as an accessory after the fact only]; People v. Lai (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1227, 1249 [portion of the restitution order attributable to fraudulently obtained aid before charged period invalidated].)
"The trial 'court's allocation of restitutionary responsibility must be sustained unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion or rests upon a demonstrable error of law.' [Citations.]" (People v. Draut (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 577, 581-582.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
