Does the fact that some of the restitution order was for economic losses to be incurred in the future, if not for the purpose of compensating the victim, stand in the context of the original restitution order?

The fact that some of the restitution was for economic losses to be incurred in the future does not call the restitution order into question. The trial court may order victim restitution to cover future economic losses. "Many, if not all, of the categories of loss compensable as direct restitution include losses that are incurred after the occurrence of the crime, and which may continue to be incurred for a substantial period of time following a restitution hearing." (People v. Giordano, supra, 42 Cal.4th at pp. 657-658.)

Page 10