People v. Zamora CA5, F080247

In 2000 Zamora was convicted of murdering Vincent Uranga and sentenced to life without parole; an attempted-murder conviction as to Uranga’s partner B.F. was later reversed and dismissed on appeal.
A restitution order had previously been entered for $4,792 for funeral/burial expenses but named an unauthorized payee; the matter was remanded and a May 2005 minute order directed $4,792 to Uranga’s family (with restitution to VCB left open).
In June 2019 the People moved to modify restitution, stating B.F. had paid $4,792 and the California Victim Compensation Board (VCB) had paid $5,399.52 for funeral expenses, requesting both amounts be ordered (total $10,191.52).
At the September 2019 hearing defense counsel waived the defendant’s presence, expressed no objection, and the parties signed a written stipulation ordering $5,399.52 to CalVCB and $4,792 payable to B.F.; the trial court entered the orders.
Zamora appealed, arguing the two awards likely duplicate reimbursement for the same funeral expenses and seeking remand to determine the actual, nonduplicative restitution; he alternatively argued ineffective assistance for counsel’s stipulation.
The Court of Appeal affirmed: the restitution challenge was forfeited by failure to object and by defense counsel’s stipulation, and the record did not establish ineffective assistance on direct appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the modified restitution order duplicated funeral/burial payments such that remand and recalculation are required	People moved to modify to add $5,399.52 to CalVCB and confirm $4,792 to B.F., seeking total restitution of $10,191.52	Zamora argued the record does not show how much was actually spent by each claimant and the two awards may be duplicative; seeks remand to determine actual costs	Forfeited: defendant failed to object below and counsel stipulated to the stipulation; appellate court affirmed the order
Whether counsel’s stipulation violated effective-assistance principles, excusing forfeiture	People noted the VCB and the People separately asserted different payments and there may be a reasonable tactical explanation for counsel’s stipulation	Zamora claimed counsel negligently agreed without verifying whether the awards overlapped, constituting ineffective assistance	Denied on direct appeal: record does not affirmatively show no rational tactical purpose; ineffective-assistance claim not established on this record

People v. Baker, 126 Cal.App.4th 463 (2005) (orders of restitution reviewed for abuse of discretion)
People v. Anderson, 50 Cal.4th 19 (2010) (failure to object in trial court forfeits appellate challenge to restitution)
People v. Brach, 95 Cal.App.4th 571 (2002) (narrow unauthorized-sentence exception to waiver doctrine)
People v. Garcia, 185 Cal.App.4th 1203 (2010) (appropriate amount of restitution is a factual determination forfeited if not raised below)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
People v. Mai, 57 Cal.4th 986 (2013) (ineffective-assistance claims rarely resolved on direct appeal; standards for doing so)
People v. Diaz, 3 Cal.4th 495 (1992) (when record is silent as to counsel’s reasons, appellate courts will not infer ineffective assistance)