DiMora

People v. DiMora

Good Law
10 Cal. App. 4th 1545·13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 616·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 1332·92 Daily Journal DAR 15412·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9288
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 17, 1992B060542California1,526 words

Opinion

Opinion

Yegan, J.

cases have held it was error for a sentencing court to delegate to the probation department the determination of the amount and manner of restitution to be paid by a probationer. They have been superseded by the enactment of Penal Code section 1203.1k when the probationer consents to this procedure. Probationers who thereafter disagree with the amount or manner of restitution, may bring a motion in the trial court and object thereto. If still not satisfied the probationer may then appeal from the trial court’s determination.

Alfred John DiMora was convicted by plea of two counts of communicating untrue material facts or omitting material facts in a private security offering. (Corp. Code, § 25401.) Probation was granted for five years on various terms and conditions, inter alia, that appellant serve two hundred seventy days in the county jail and that he pay restitution “as recommended by probation.” He challenges the restitution order because the probation department subsequently notified him that he owes over a half million dollars in restitution.

Appellant originally pled no contest to these two counts in a negotiated disposition before Judge McMahon. The terms of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.