How have courts dealt with the issue of improper counsel at a restitution hearing?

By not objecting to the amount of restitution in the trial court, defendant has forfeited this issue on appeal. Without an objection by defendant, the prosecution had no reason to present further evidence on the issue. (People v. Beaver (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 107, 129.)

Page 53

Lastly, defendant contends she was denied effective assistance of counsel at the restitution hearing. She faults her counsel for failing to object to investigative costs as restitution; not arguing, based on People v. Crow, supra, 6 Cal.4th 952, that restitution cannot be ordered for amounts the government agency would have paid absent the false statements; and failing to claim that restitution could not be ordered for periods not included within the convictions.

"To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant 'must establish not only deficient performance, i.e., representation below an objective standard of reasonableness, but also resultant prejudice.'" (People v. Hart (1999) 20 Cal.4th 546, 623.)

"Prejudice occurs only if the record demonstrates reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.' [Citation.]" (People v. Lucero (2000) 23 Cal.4th 692, 728.)