People v. Achterberg CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Achterberg contends the $2,400 restitution order should be vacated because he did not cause Jane’s losses. We disagree. Victims of crimes have a constitutional right to restitution. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b), par. (13).) Such restitution may be ordered as a condition of probation. (People v. Snow (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 932, 939 (Snow); see § 1203.1, subd. (j).) When so ordered, the amount of restitution is not limited to losses due to crimes for which the defendant was convicted but may also include losses “caused by related conduct not resulting in a conviction.” (Snow, at p. 939.) This includes losses attributable to “conduct of which a defendant has been acquitted [citation], uncharged conduct, and conduct for which the statute of limitations has run [citation].” (Id. at pp. 939-940.) We review a restitution order for abuse of discretion. (Snow, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at p. 940.) We will find no abuse so long as “‘“‘there is a factual and rational basis for the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court. [Citations.]’”’” (People v. Moore (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1231.) Such a basis exists if the restitution ordered is “reasonably . . . related…