California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Lavinge, 2d Crim. No. B269699 (Cal. App. 2016):
In ordering restitution at the time of sentencing, the trial court here indicated "there may be additional claims" for victim restitution in the future. The abstract of judgment also indicates that the full amount of restitution was "to be determined." These indications reflect the court's understanding that the full extent of the victim's losses could not be determined as of the date of sentencing. "Under a reading of the plain language of section 1202.4, if the court cannot determine the amount of restitution at the time of sentencing, there is no limitation upon when the court must next set a restitution hearing, nor is there a limitation on the permissible reasons that may prevent fixing the amount of restitution." (People v. Bufford (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 966, 971.) The court thus had jurisdiction to modify the restitution order after it discovered that the victims had suffered additional losses as a result of appellant's criminal conduct.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.