People v. Avalos CA4/2, E075994

Defendant Jorge Armando Avalos was convicted of sexual offenses (counts 1–3) and sentenced to 14 years; the trial court reserved determination of victim restitution under Penal Code §1202.4.
At sentencing defense counsel objected to restitution for the victim’s mother and sister and objected to the sufficiency of documentation for the victim’s claimed VCB reimbursement; the court reserved jurisdiction on actual restitution and said defendant could seek a later hearing.
Months later the probation department recommended $8,685 restitution (based on VCB payments) and a different judge signed an order and, after an ex parte hearing, ordered defendant to pay $8,685 to the Victim Compensation Board (VCB); defendant did not get a full adversary hearing on the disputed amounts.
The record is unclear whether defendant received timely notice of the probation memorandum/order (a Dept. of Corrections stamp shows receipt after the ex parte order), and defendant did not set a 30‑day hearing.
Defendant appealed the restitution order; the Court of Appeal held defendant had not forfeited his right to a restitution hearing and reversed and remanded for a restitution hearing on all three claims (victim, mother, sister).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant was entitled to a §1202.4 hearing before contested restitution amounts were ordered	Avalos forfeited his challenge by failing to set the 30‑day hearing; remand (if any) should be limited to amounts for the victim only	Counsel objected at sentencing to relatives’ claims and to lack of documentation; defendant never had an adversary hearing on the contested amounts	Reversed and remanded for a restitution hearing on all three claims because counsel preserved objections and defendant did not forfeit the right to a hearing
Whether §1237.2 bars appeal of restitution amount/order	§1237.2 prohibits appeal of fines/fees/calculations not raised at sentencing	§1237.2 does not apply because this appeal is not from the judgment of conviction	§1237.2 did not apply here (appeal is from the postjudgment restitution order), so it does not bar review

People v. Giordano, 42 Cal.4th 644 (Cal. 2007) (describing restitution statute and appellate review principles)
People v. Millard, 175 Cal.App.4th 7 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (prima facie burden on People and burden shift to defendant at restitution hearing)
People v. Chappelone, 183 Cal.App.4th 1159 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (restitution must use a rational method to make victim whole)
People v. Brasure, 42 Cal.4th 1037 (Cal. 2008) (failure to object at trial forfeits challenge to restitution amount as unsupported by evidence)
People v. Anderson, 50 Cal.4th 19 (Cal. 2010) (forfeiture principles for restitution objections)
People v. McCullough, 56 Cal.4th 589 (Cal. 2013) (failure to object below forfeits appellate challenge to fees)
People v. Hall, 39 Cal.App.5th 502 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (interpreting §1237.2 as broadly applying to errors in fees and surcharges)