People v. Lunsford

Opinion

SCOTLAND, J.

A jury convicted defendant Eugene Lunsford of first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189) and found he personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense (Pen. Code, § 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)). He was sentenced to state prison, fined, and ordered to pay victim restitution.

In the published portion of this opinion, we reject defendant’s contention that the victim restitution order is void and unenforceable. As we will explain, when the amount of loss cannot be ascertained at the time of sentencing, the trial court may order the defendant to pay restitution in an amount to be determined by the agency that administers the victim restitution program. If the defendant disputes the agency’s determination, he may

[903]

obtain judicial review of that determination pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(1).

In the unpublished part of our opinion, we find no merit in defendant’s remaining claim of error. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment.

Discussion

I

*

H

In ordering victim restitution, the trial court stated: “I know not whether there are actual restitution costs such as for the final medical bills, or burial expenses, but if there are such costs, I do assess those and order restitution to be paid by the defendant in an amount to be determined by the Office of Revenue Reimbursement . . . .”

Defendant claims this order for victim restitution is void and unenforceable because it “fails to specify the amount of restitution” and “leaves the final determination of the amount to an agency other than the court.” For this proposition, defendant cites

People

v.

Guardado

(1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 757 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 81]. However, as he recognizes,