Does section 1202.4 of the California Criminal Code require a defendant to pay restitution for economic loss caused by the criminal activity that formed the basis of the criminal conviction?

Courts have interpreted section 1202.4 as limiting restitution awards to those losses arising out of the criminal activity that formed the basis of the conviction. Thus, when a court imposes a prison sentence following trial, section 1202.4 limits the scope of victim restitution to losses caused by the criminal conduct for which the defendant sustained the conviction. (People v. Woods (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1049 [defendant not required to pay restitution for economic loss resulting from murder when he was convicted as an accessory after the fact only]; People v. Lai (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1227, 1249 [portion of the restitution order attributable to fraudulently obtained aid before charged period invalidated].)

However, this limitation does not apply in the context of grants of probation. "California courts have long interpreted the trial courts' discretion to encompass the ordering of restitution as a condition of probation even when the loss was not necessarily caused by the criminal conduct underlying the conviction. Under certain circumstances, restitution has been found proper where the loss was caused by related conduct not resulting in a conviction [citation], by conduct underlying dismissed and uncharged counts [citation], and by conduct resulting in an acquittal [citation]." (People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1121.)

When victim restitution is ordered in conjunction with an award of probation, as the trial court did here, restitution is not strictly limited in the same fashion as if the defendant had been sentenced to prison. (See, e.g., People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481,

Page 6