Lunsford

People v. Lunsford

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 924·67 Cal. App. 4th 901·79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 363·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8357
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 9, 1998C026234California578 words

Opinion

Opinion

Scotland, J.

A jury convicted defendant Eugene Lunsford of first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189) and found he personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense (Pen. Code, § 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)). He was sentenced to state prison, fined, and ordered to pay victim restitution.

In the published portion of this opinion, we reject defendant’s contention that the victim restitution order is void and unenforceable. As we will explain, when the amount of loss cannot be ascertained at the time of sentencing, the trial court may order the defendant to pay restitution in an amount to be determined by the agency that administers the victim restitution program. If the defendant disputes the agency’s determination, he may obtain judicial review of that determination pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(1).

In the unpublished part of our opinion, we find no merit in defendant’s remaining claim of error. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment.

Discussion

I

H

In ordering victim restitution, the trial court stated: “I know not whether there are actual restitution costs such as for the final medical bills, or burial expenses, but if there are such costs, I do…

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.