People v. Mays, 15 Cal. App. 5th 1232

Defendant Mays accompanied Charles Williams and relatives to confront Marcel Hatch after Hatch assaulted Williams; Williams shot and killed Hatch. Mays was convicted of voluntary manslaughter with a firearm enhancement and sentenced to 12 years.
Probation recommended $9,130 restitution payable to Carolyn P. for funeral and burial expenses; the probation report noted Carolyn was Hatch’s mother and was severely affected by his death.
At sentencing the court ordered restitution to the estate of Carolyn P.; defense objected generally but did not contest the factual basis that Carolyn had personally incurred the expenses.
On appeal Mays argued the restitution was improper because the victim (Hatch) died before the expenses were incurred, relying on People v. Runyan, and the Attorney General initially conceded that point.
The Court of Appeal sought supplemental briefing on whether Carolyn P. qualified as a “victim” under Penal Code §1202.4(k)(1), whether she was alive when expenses were incurred, and whether the restitution payable to her estate was proper.
The court affirmed: it held Carolyn P. was a victim under the statute, the funeral/burial expenses were incurred while she was alive, defendant forfeited any factual challenge to who actually paid the expenses by failing to object below, and there was no prejudice to support an ineffective-assistance claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Carolyn P. was a "victim" for restitution purposes	State: immediate surviving family of the actual victim qualifies under Penal Code §1202.4(k)(1)	Mays: implied challenge to treating a family member as the victim for these expenses	Court: Carolyn P. is a victim under §1202.4(k)(1)
Whether funeral/burial expenses were incurred while Carolyn P. was alive	State: record indicates she was alive when expenses were incurred	Mays: contends Hatch died before expenses were incurred (Runyan)	Court: expenses were incurred while Carolyn P. was alive, so Runyan's bar does not apply
Whether record shows Carolyn personally incurred the funeral/burial expenses	State: prosecution did not need further proof at sentencing; probation report supports restitution	Mays: argues no evidence she personally paid expenses; could have been paid by someone else	Court: factual challenge not preserved—defendant forfeited by not objecting in trial court; no basis on appeal to overturn
Whether failure to object at trial amounted to ineffective assistance	Mays: counsel deficient for not objecting, producing forfeiture; requests reversal	State: even if deficient, no prejudice shown because record does not allow speculation	Court: ineffective-assistance claim fails for lack of demonstrated prejudice

People v. Runyan, 54 Cal.4th 849 (discusses limits on restitution to a deceased victim's estate for expenses arising after the victim's death)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
People v. Anderson, 50 Cal.4th 19 (failure to object in trial court forfeits claim challenging sufficiency of evidence for restitution)
People v. Brasure, 42 Cal.4th 1037 (failure to object forfeits claim that restitution order was unwarranted by evidence)