Can I Reduce the Amount of Restitution I Have to Pay in a Criminal Case? Two Powerful Arguments that You Can.
Having to pay restitution is one of the major parts of being convicted of a crime. Restitution is paying the victim for any losses, which is similar to damages in a civil case (in a criminal case, the victim may only recover actual losses, and not things like “pain and suffering”). If you’ve been ordered to pay victim restitution as part of a criminal case in California, you may wonder whether that amount is negotiable—or if you're stuck with whatever the prosecution claims. The truth is, restitution amounts can often be challenged, and courts have the discretion to reduce or modify what a defendant must pay based on several important factors. Court discretion is a good thing. Discretion means that your attorney has room to argue the facts to the Court to get a more just result.
This post explains:
The legal standard for restitution in California;
The court’s discretionary authority;
Two key arguments often used to reduce restitution amounts:
Medical billing reductions (write-offs or discounts); and
Offsets for payments already made (e.g., by insurance).
The Legal Standard for Restitution (Penal Code § 1202.4)
Under Penal Code § 1202.4, California law requires courts to order a convicted defendant to pay restitution to any victim who has suffered an economic loss as a result of the defendant’s criminal conduct.
“A victim of crime who incurs any economic loss as a result of the commission of a crime shall receive restitution directly from any defendant convicted of that crime.”
— Pen. Code, § 1202.4(a)(1)
The restitution amount must be enough to fully reimburse the victim—but only for losses they actually suffered.
“The restitution order shall be of a dollar amount that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct.”
— Pen. Code, § 1202.4(f)(3)
Importantly, the law does not require restitution for hypothetical, inflated, or forgiven amounts. Courts are not required to blindly accept the amounts claimed—they must determine what losses are real, proven, and causally linked to the crime.
Court Discretion in Restitution Awards
While Penal Code § 1202.4 sets the restitution framework, courts have broad discretion in determining the appropriate amount. That discretion stems not only from the statute, but also from judicial precedent.
In People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, the California Supreme Court emphasized the trial court’s discretion in making restitution awards, stating:
“The court retains discretion to adjust the amount of restitution based on the circumstances of the case, including a showing that the claimed losses are speculative or excessive.”
— Giordano, at p. 663
Similarly, in People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, the court reinforced that restitution must be fair and grounded in actual financial harm:
“A restitution order should compensate a victim for actual losses… But it should not overcompensate a victim with a windfall award.”
— Millard, at p. 27
This means courts can, and should, consider whether the claimed losses:
Were actually incurred (caused by the defendant);
Have already been paid by a defendant’s insurance company; or
Reflect inflated charges that were never expected to be collected.
Argument 1: Restitution Should Not Include “Written Off” Medical Bills
A common issue in criminal restitution cases involves medical billing write-offs. Hospitals and doctors may initially issue large bills, but often apply reductions (write-offs) for uninsured patients, charity care, or negotiated insurance rates.
If a provider voluntarily reduces or forgives part of the bill, that portion is not something the victim is legally obligated to pay—and thus, the defendant shouldn’t have to pay it either.
Legal Authority:
“To ‘fully reimburse’ the victim for medical expenses means to reimburse him or her for all out-of-pocket expenses actually paid by the victim or others on the victim's behalf… The concept of ‘reimbursement’ generally does not support inclusion of amounts of medical bills in excess of those accepted by medical providers as payment in full.”
— People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 27
“An award of damages for past medical expenses in excess of what the medical care and services actually cost constitutes overcompensation.”
— People v. Bergin (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1166, 1171–1172
In other words, restitution should reflect actual financial harm, not the originally billed “sticker price” that was never paid or expected to be paid.
Argument 2: Restitution Should Be Offset by Insurance Payments
Another major issue is double recovery—when a victim receives reimbursement from insurance but still seeks restitution for the same expenses. California law allows a defendant to “offset” (not pay) any restitution amount paid by the defendant’s own insurance company. This includes insurance paid for by the defendant’s employer or, if the defendant is named on the policy, the policy paid for by a parent. There is no offset for payments made by a victim’s insurance policy.
When insurance or a civil settlement has already covered the loss, restitution should be reduced or eliminated accordingly.
“Payments made to the victim by the defendant’s insurer in settlement of the victim's civil claims against the defendant should offset the defendant’s victim restitution obligation to the extent those payments indemnified the victim for losses covered by the restitution order.”
— People v. Jennings (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 42, 50
What matters is whether the money was paid to cover economic losses—such as medical bills, lost wages, or property damage. If so, those payments must be credited against the restitution order.
This ensures the victim is fairly reimbursed—but not compensated twice for the same harm.
Conclusion: Restitution Is Not Automatic—It’s Meant to Be Fair
Restitution is a powerful part of California’s criminal justice system, but it’s not meant to be punitive or excessive. Defendants have a right to contest inflated or duplicative restitution demands, and judges have the authority—and the obligation—to ensure restitution orders reflect actual, not speculative, losses.
If you're facing a restitution order and believe the amount is too high, you may have strong grounds to ask the court for a reduction, especially if:
Medical providers reduced or forgave part of the claimed bills;
The victim already received payments from insurance;
The claimed losses were never actually incurred or were overestimated.
At Couzens Criminal Defense, we help clients across Placer County and the greater Sacramento area fight for restitution outcomes that are just, lawful, and evidence-based.
📞 Call us today at (916) 603-2000
📍 Couzens Criminal Defense – Roseville, California
