Opinion ID: 1801755
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Challenge to the order of restitution

Text: Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in determining defendant's ability to pay a restitution fine of $10,000 under section 1202.4. Both the version of section 1202.4 in effect at the time defendant was sentenced in 1998, and the current version, provide that [i]nability to pay may be considered ... in increasing the amount of the restitution fine in excess of the two hundred-dollar ... minimum (§ 1202.4, subd. (c), and that [i]n setting the amount of the fine ... in excess of the two hundred-dollar... minimum, the court shall consider any relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the defendant's inability to pay, the seriousness and gravity of the offense and the circumstances of its commission, any economic gain derived by the defendant as a result of the crime, the extent to which any other person suffered any losses as a result of the crime, and the number of victims involved in the crime. Those losses may include pecuniary losses to the victim or his or her dependents as well as intangible losses, such as psychological harm caused by the crime. Consideration of a defendant's inability to pay may include his or her future earning capacity. A defendant shall bear the burden of demonstrating his or her inability to pay. Express findings by the court as to the factors bearing on the amount of the fine shall not be required. (§ 1202.4, subd. (d).) Defendant's argument in the trial courtthat the imposition of a large restitution fine, which would be deducted from a portion of any funds given to defendant by his family to purchase personal items such as toothpaste, would be an additional indignitydid not establish that imposing the maximum fine of $10,000 would be inappropriate under section 1202.4. On the contrary, his argument contemplated that defendant would have funds in the future from which restitution could be paid, and thus contradicted the view that defendant would be unable to pay the fine. Defendant's theory on appealthat the trial court disregarded his inability to pay the finealso fails. The court clearly considered that possibility as a factor, but defendant's assertion that he was unable to pay the fine did not compel the court to impose a lesser fine. In light of the offenses committed by defendant and the harm he caused to the victim and her children, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination that a fine in the amount of $10,000 was appropriate.