Defendant is not entitled to have a jury determine the amount of victim restitution. A jury convicted appellant of four counts of robbery. She appealed the court’s restitution award to each of the victims, claiming she was entitled to have a jury determine the amount of restitution. Held: Affirmed. Appellant relied on Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 and Southern Union Co. v. United States (2012) __ U.S. __, to support her argument. But neither of these cases “have any application to direct victim restitution, because direct victim restitution is not a criminal penalty.” Direct victim restitution is a substitute for a civil remedy provided so that crime victims do not have to file civil lawsuits. Nor is victim restitution a criminal fine, as in Southern Union—victim restitution and criminal fines are distinct.