Skip to content
Name: People v. Cain
Case #: E025274
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 07/11/2000
Subsequent History: Modification of opinion 82 Cal.App.4th 1041c; review denied 10/25/00

At a hearing held pursuant to Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (h)(2), to determine the amount of restitution to be made by the defendant to the victim, the defendant does not have a state or federal constitutional right to call the victim's psychotherapist as a witness and to cross-examine him or her. Here, the trial court had a sworn statement from the therapist establishing that the victims' counseling was directly related to the crime the defendant committed against her and their son, and the probation report contained the amount of payments that had already been made by the Board…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Allen
Case #: C010453
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 04/30/2001
Subsequent History: None

A fine "in the form of a penalty assessment" pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (a)(2) requires an underlying fine upon which the penalty can be assessed. The court reached this conclusion based upon the plain language of the statute, its legislative history, and analogous statutory interpretations. However, under Penal Code section 672, the court had the discretion to impose a fine up to $10,000 in felony cases "in relation to which no fine herein is prescribed." Since no fine is prescribed for burglary, the offense here, the trial court could have imposed a fine under…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Smith
Case #: S088387
Court: CA Supreme Court
Opinion Date: 01/11/2001
Subsequent History: None

Where the trial court imposes a restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b), but omits or imposes an erroneous parole revocation fine, appellate courts may correct this error even though the People failed to object at sentencing. Here, the trial court imposed a $5,000 restitution fine, and a $200 parole revocation fine. The Court of Appeals properly corrected the erroneous imposition of the parole revocation fine, despite the People's failure to object, by increasing it to $5,000. Because appellant failed to argue that the imposition of the $5,000 restitution fine was improper, there were no…

View Full Summary