When will a defendant's absence from a restitution hearing be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?

People v. Penunuri , supra , 5 Cal.5th at p. 163, 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 324, 418 P.3d 263 ; People v. Davis , supra , 36 Cal.4th at p. 532, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 96, 115 P.3d 417.) The People observe defense counsel was present at both hearings, raised defendant's inability to pay the restitution fine, and disputed payment of victim restitution, and they assert that defendant would not have made any additional contributions if present. Defendant claims that she was in the best position to address her ability to pay and details about her life insurance policy.

[11 Cal.5th 509]

There is nothing in the record to indicate that defendant would have added any significant information about her inability to pay beyond that presented by defense counsel. Defense counsel received notice of the proposed victim restitution almost two months prior to the hearing and thus "had ample opportunity to discuss the contents with defendant and to seek [her] assistance .... Assuming [counsel] did so, defendant's presence at the hearing would have added little to [her] attorney[s] ability to argue" the propriety of the victim restitution payments. ( People v. Davis , supra , 36 Cal.4th at p. 533, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 96, 115 P.3d 417.) We conclude that defendant's absence from the restitution proceedings was therefore harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.