Bjorklund

DISCUSSION

Bjorklund contends the trial court erred by sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissing his writ petition. We disagree. "The standard of review on appeal from a judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer to a petition for writ of mandate without leave to amend is well established. We examine the pleading de novo to determine whether it alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any legal theory. [Citation.] We give the pleading 'a reasonable interpretation and treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but we do not assume the truth of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of law.' [Citation.]" (Keffeler v. Partnership Healthplan of California (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 322, 335, fn. 10.) Bjorklund correctly asserts that restitution to victims of crimes is constitutionally and statutorily mandated in California. (People v. Keichler (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1045; see Cal. Const., art. I, § 28; Pen. Code, § 1202.4.) The problem

2 he faces, however, is two-fold. First, Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f) states that “in every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss…