Restitution order directing payment of restitution to the county for the cost of extradition proceedings exceeded the court’s authority under Penal Code section 1202.4. Defendant pleaded guilty to one of several charged felonies and agreed to a specific prison term. She failed to appear for sentencing, and a bench warrant was issued. She was arrested in Virginia, extradited to California, and sentenced to state prison. She was ordered to pay $9,363.92 restitution to the county for the cost of her extradition. She argued on appeal that the restitution order was improper. Held: Judgment modified to strike restitution award. Penal Code section 1202.4 addresses a crime victim’s right to restitution in criminal cases. A government agency comes within the statutory definition of victim “when that entity is a direct victim of a crime.” (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (k)(2).) Public agencies are not direct victims merely because they spend money to investigate crimes or apprehend criminals. Further, restitution under section 1202.4 is limited to losses from the criminal activity that formed the basis of the conviction. Defendant’s extradition did not arise out of the conduct that formed the basis of her conviction. Because the county was not a direct victim of defendant’s crime, the trial court exceeded its authority under section 1202.4 by ordering restitution for the cost of her extradition.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/H046161.PDF