ease law allows the court discretion to consider almost any relevant factor or evidence in determining the appropriate sentence.”). Where the trial court relies on certain information that, in ton, affects a defendant’s sentence, then due process may require advance notice to the defendant so that the defendant has the opportunity to challenge the accuracy of the information. See State v. Montoya, 91 N.M. 425, 427, 575 P.2d 609, 611 (finding no error in the trial court’s consideration of a presentenee report that included arrests not resulting in convictions, but implying that error might exist if the trial court considered inaccurate information or information that the defendant had no opportunity to explain). See also State v. Lack, 98 N.M. 500, 507, 650 P.2d 22, 29 (Ct.App.1982) (<HOLDING>). In this case, however, there is no indication
holding that when trial court orders restitution at sentencing pursuant to statute the defendant is entitled to notice of the amount claimed and the opportunity to dispute the amount holding that the court erred in failing to inform the defendant that it could impose restitution but that the error did not affect the defendants substantial rights because the court informed the defendant that it could impose a maximum fine of an amount higher than the restitution amount imposed holding that the amount of restitution is limited to the victims actual losses  holding that where defendant failed to object to the procedure utilized by the court in determining the amount of restitution at sentencing his challenge on appeal was unpreserved for appellate review holding that where the government has not presented evidence at the hearing concerning the appropriate amount of restitution    the imposition of the restitution order constitutes plain error