P.

DISCUSSION

Ferguson contends the court erred when it ordered him in case No. 11CM8769 to pay $8,000 in victim restitution because: 1) restitution can be only be ordered for the crime a defendant is convicted of; and 2) this amount did not relate to the receiving stolen

3 property offense that he pled to in that case. Respondent contends this claim is not properly before us because Ferguson forfeited his right to challenge this restitution order by his failure to object to it in the trial court and he waived his appellate rights. Alternatively, respondent contends the restitution order was proper because Ferguson was found in possession of property belonging to the victim and there is no evidence the victim recovered this property. We agree with Ferguson.

“We review the trial court‟s restitution order for abuse of discretion. [Citation.] A restitution order that is based on a demonstrable error of law constitutes an abuse of the trial court‟s discretion. [Citation.]” (People v. Woods (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1048-1049.)

“While it is true that crime victims in California have a right to restitution, the right to recover from any given defendant is not unlimited. Our…