People v. Howell CA3

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Howell asserts the restitution order must be vacated because (1) his statutory and constitutional rights were violated, resulting in prejudice, when the trial court conducted the restitution hearing without Howell or his attorney present, and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to appear at the hearing.

2 A criminal defendant has the right under the California and federal Constitutions to be present and represented by counsel at all critical stages of a trial. (People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 465.) Sentencing is a critical stage of the trial (People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 347-348), and a hearing on the amount of victim restitution to be awarded is an essential part of the sentencing process. (People v. Cain (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 81, 87.) Thus, a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to be present and represented by counsel at a victim restitution hearing, and waiver of that right must be a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent act “done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” (Brady v. United States (1970) 397 U.S. 742, 748.)…