P. v. Burgess
Jeffrey Lynn Burgess pled guilty to grand theft and receiving stolen property in exchange for the dismissal of one count of vandalism with a Harvey[1]waiver. The trial court sentenced Burgess to three years formal probation. One of the conditions of probation was that Burgess agree to [p]ay restitution in the amount to be determined . . . . Following a restitution hearing, the trial court ordered Burgess to pay direct victim restitution in the amount of $32,389.18. (Pen. Code, 1202.4; all further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.) On appeal, Burgess contends the trial court violated his constitutional right to due process and a fair hearing by quashing a defense subpoena for the owner of the stolen and/or damaged property. He argues the courts order prevented him from subjecting the owners valuation of the property to cross examination under oath.Generally, a trial court violates the defendants due process right at a hearing to determine the amount of restitution [when] the hearing procedures are fundamentally unfair. (People v. Cain (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 81, 87 (Cain), citing People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749, 754 (Arbuckle).) Burgess has failed to persuade us that the trial courts decision deprived him of a fair restitution hearing. Therefore, Court affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Burgess