Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. CM030867
BLEASE, Acting P. J.
A jury found defendant Marcos Francisco Rivas guilty of purchasing, receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm while prohibited from doing so by an existing temporary restraining order. (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (g)(1); undesignated references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.) The trial court placed defendant on three years of formal probation subject to specified terms and conditions, including an award of victim restitution to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board in the amount of $2,000.
On appeal, defendant contends the award of victim restitution was for relocation expenses and therefore required specific verification pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3)(I). We will affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Police went to defendant’s home in response to a report of threats made by defendant to the victim, Nicky Indiveri. There, they found defendant seated in a chair with a shotgun on the floor near him. Police had previously learned defendant had a protective order against him and was prohibited from possessing a firearm.
Defendant was arrested and charged with felony criminal threats (§ 422 -- count 1), felony purchasing, receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm while prohibited from doing so by an existing temporary restraining order (§ 12021, subd. (g)(1) -- count 2), and misdemeanor contempt of court (§ 166, subd. (c)(1) -- count 3).
Count 3 was later amended to allege a violation of section 166, subdivision (a)(4).
Following a three-day trial, the jury found defendant not guilty of count 1 and guilty of count 2. The court declared a mistrial as to count 3 after the jury was unable to reach a verdict on that count.
The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three years’ formal probation. A discussion between the court and counsel regarding imposition of restitution fines included the following colloquy:
“THE COURT: Court is reserving jurisdiction over the issue of restitution to Nicky Indiveri. [¶] Victim restitution will also be -- is there an amount already, of $2,000 already that’s been paid out?”
“MR. [PROSECUTOR]: That was paid out with the relocation expenses.
“THE COURT: Very well. I’ll order that you [defendant] pay $2,000 to California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, and I’ll reserve jurisdiction to set or modify that amount in the future.”
Defendant executed a form accepting the terms and conditions of probation.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the order to pay $2,000 in victim restitution pertained to relocation expenses and, as such, was unauthorized in the absence of verification pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3)(I).
Defendant did not challenge the order to pay the $2,000 in victim restitution at sentencing. He cannot do so for the first time on appeal. (People v. Valtakis (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1071-1072; People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 237; People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481.) The claim is forfeited. (People v. O’Neal (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 817, 820; People v.Valtakis, supra, at p. 1072.) The exception to the forfeiture rule, an unauthorized sentence (People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852), is inapplicable here.
In any event, the claim lacks merit. The court ordered, pursuant to a recommendation of the probation report, of “victim restitution” in the amount of $2,000 to be paid to the “State of California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (Board).” The compensation fund is governed by the Board (Gov. Code, § 13955), which determines the eligibility for and the amount and purpose of the compensation (Gov. Code, § 13952 et seq.) For that reason, the details of the compensation are not determined by the trial court and are not subject to the provisions of section 1204.4, subdivision (f)(3)(I).
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: SIMS, J., NICHOLSON, J.