What is the standard of review for a restitution hearing where a defendant failed to show prejudice from his absence?

Defendant Kol contends it was error to hold a restitution hearing, and make orders regarding restitution, in his absence. "An appellate court applies the independent or de novo standard of review to a trial court's exclusion of a criminal defendant from trial, either in whole or in part." (People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 741.) Exercising our independent review, we conclude Kol has failed to show prejudice from his absence at the conclusion of the restitution hearing.

"It is established that a defendant has a federal constitutional right, emanating from the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to be present at any stage of the criminal proceedings 'that is critical to its outcome if his presence would contribute to the fairness of the procedure.' [Citations.] In addition, a defendant has the right to be personally present at critical proceedings, pursuant to the state Constitution (Cal. Const., art. I, 15; [citation]), as well as pursuant to statute ( 977, 1043)." (People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1356-1357 (Bradford).)