The California Court of Appeal has affirmed the conviction of Victoria Bem, who pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter after fatally shooting her boyfriend. The court's decision, filed on October 27, 2026, confirms the terms of her plea agreement and the restitution ordered by the lower court.

This ruling affects Bem, who is currently serving a nine-year sentence in state prison, and sets a precedent regarding the restitution obligations of defendants in similar cases. The court found no arguable issues on appeal that would warrant a different outcome.

Background

The case began in January 2023 when Victoria Bem contacted law enforcement, claiming she shot her boyfriend in self-defense. She stated that he had threatened to kill her and her family. Following this incident, the San Joaquin County District Attorney's Office charged her with murder under California Penal Code section 187.

In November 2023, the prosecution added charges for intentional discharge of a firearm resulting in great bodily injury or death, as well as several aggravating factors. However, in October 2024, the charges were amended as part of a negotiated plea agreement. Bem ultimately pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter and admitted to using a firearm in the commission of a felony.

The Ruling

The court ruled to affirm the July 28, 2025, order regarding restitution, which included payment for the victim's burial expenses and counseling fees incurred by the victim's mother. The trial court had ordered Bem to pay a total of $7,169.75 in restitution, which included $5,918.25 for burial expenses and $1,260 for counseling services.

During the restitution hearing, Bem contested the counseling fees, arguing that the prosecution did not establish a clear connection between the mother’s counseling and the victim’s death. However, the court did not agree with her argument and upheld the order for the counseling fees. The opinion stated, "Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant." The ruling was made by Justice Krause, with Justices Earl and Boulware Eurie concurring.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for defendants in similar cases, particularly regarding restitution obligations. The court's affirmation of the restitution order reinforces the idea that defendants may be held responsible for related expenses incurred by victims' families, such as counseling services. This could influence future cases where the nexus between a crime and the victim's family expenses is contested.

Additionally, the court's decision highlights the importance of plea agreements and the potential limitations on appeals once a defendant has entered a plea. The ruling serves as a reminder for defendants to carefully consider the terms of any plea deal, as they may have limited recourse after accepting a plea.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Victoria Bem plans to appeal the ruling. However, given the court's affirmation of the trial court's decisions, any further legal action may face significant challenges.