A defendant convicted of hit-and-run was properly ordered to pay restitution to the victim of the accident, and the restitution order imposed as a condition of probation remained enforceable by the victim after the defendant was sentenced to prison. The defendant pled no contest to a violation of Vehicle Code section 20001, subdivision (a), and the court ordered him to pay direct restitution for the victim’s unreimbursed medical expenses. After defendant’s probation was revoked, the court again ordered victim restitution in the amount of $9,000. On appeal, defendant argued that his criminal conduct — fleeing the scene of an accident — did not cause the victim’s injuries, and thus he should not have been required to pay restitution to the victim once he was sentenced to prison. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, noting that victim restitution is mandatory but declining to reach the question of whether the Supreme Court decision in People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114 should extend to restitution orders imposed in conjunction with a prison sentence. Instead, the court relied on People v. Chambers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 819 and found that the original restitution order remained in effect despite the termination of defendant’s probation.