People v. George CA3

DISCUSSION

On appeal, defendant contends: (1) Farmers did not suffer economic losses as a result of his crime of conviction and is therefore not entitled to victim restitution; and (2) the restitution as a probation condition serves no rehabilitative purpose and must be stricken. We find the trial court abused its discretion in ordering victim restitution to Farmers and as a condition of probation.

3 I Victim Restitution Defendant contends the evidence before the trial court was insufficient to support the conclusion that Farmers suffered economic losses from his admitted crime. We agree. A court has a constitutionally mandated duty to order restitution to a victim who “has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct.” (§ 1202.4, subd. (f); Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b)(13)(A).) A business entity is a “ ‘victim’ ” under section 1202.4 when the entity is “a direct victim of a crime.” (§ 1202.4, subd. (k)(2).) “Courts have interpreted section 1202.4 as limiting restitution awards to those losses arising out of the criminal activity that formed the basis of the conviction.” (People v. Woods (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1049.) Restitution may be ordered only…