The California Supreme Court has already granted review to decide whether restitution orders are required to assess whether or not the defendant has the ability to pay. Meanwhile, since such orders are routine, appeals continue raise this issue, and the already-split Courts of Appeal accordingly get to deepen the split by percolating the issue further.
Today's opinion is but the latest. I've talked about other cases (e.g., here and here) that raise this same issue. We're now at the point where very little additional ink, virtual or otherwise, needs to be spilled, as both viewpoints have already been expansively articulated. So, here, all that's necessary is a four-and-a-half (double spaced) majority opinion that says that it disagrees with Dueñas, and a dissent that consists of a single paragraph that goes the other way.
Which seems right. Of course defendant brought the appeal. Of course the Attorney General resisted it. Ultimately the California Supreme Court would decide.
No need to do much more than go on record as to which way the panel thinks is right.
