People v. Ramirez CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS328090
- Trial judge
- Maryann D’Addezio
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Judith D. McConnell (author), Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court ordered $5,580 in restitution based solely on the victim's testimony regarding lost wages, medical expenses, property damage, and late rent fees. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order for $5,580 in restitution“Based on the victim’s testimony, the court awarded $5,580 in restitution.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | unsure The court affirmed the judgment without addressing the specific merits of the restitution order, stating it found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal after an independent review of the record. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record by appellate counsel when no issues are raised.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires independent review of the record by appellate counsel when no issues are raised.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for independent review. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to explicitly address the specific legal standards for restitution evidence or the trial court's discretion, relying instead on a blanket statement that no arguable issues were found.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court, after Ramirez pled guilty to battery with serious bodily injury and was placed on probation, awarded the victim $5,580 in restitution based solely on the victim's testimony estimating lost wages, medical expenses, property damage, and late rent fees, without receipts. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief raising no issues, Ramirez filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Restitution order of $5,580 based solely on the victim's unreceipted testimony estimating lost wages, medical expenses, property damage, and late rent fees“The victim stated the amounts were estimates, and he did not provide any receipts. Based on the victim’s testimony, the court awarded $5,580 in restitution.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The appellate court did not articulate a standard; it performed Wende independent review and found no arguable issue. Under settled California restitution law a victim's testimony or statement of loss is prima facie evidence of economic loss, the court may rely on estimates, and the burden shifts to the defendant to rebut; nothing in the opinion suggests Ramirez offered rebuttal, so the order was within the trial court's broad discretion and supported by substantial evidence. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- missed: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Wende independent review is constitutionally required only in a defendant's first appeal of right; the court did not address whether an appeal from a postjudgment restitution order triggers mandatory Wende review, though conducting the review anyway caused no prejudice.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, identifies the two issues counsel flagged, and reaches a defensible result because a victim's testimony is prima facie evidence of loss under California restitution law. It does not, however, cite any restitution authority or state the standard of review, and it does not address whether Wende review was required for a postjudgment restitution appeal.
Opinion
Filed 1/28/26 P. v. Ramirez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D085680
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS328090)
JOSHUA ISAIAH RAMIREZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Maryann D’Addezio, Judge. Affirmed. Kirstin M. Ault, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Joshua Isaiah Ramirez appeals from a restitution order following his guilty plea to battery with serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d)).1 His court-appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues but seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders).
1 Subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. We informed Ramirez of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he did not respond. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On April 8, 2024, Ramirez pled guilty to one count of battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)). In exchange for pleading guilty, the People agreed to dismiss the allegation Ramirez personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). On July 9, 2024, the trial court sentenced Ramirez pursuant to the plea agreement to two years of formal probation, with the condition he serve 90 days in county jail and a recommendation for participation in the Sheriff’s Work Furlough program. The court reserved jurisdiction on restitution for a future hearing, for which Ramirez waived his presence. At the contested restitution hearing on January 29, 2025, the victim testified and requested $5,580 in restitution. The $5,580 amount consisted of $4,470 for lost wages, $750 for medical expenses, $160 for damaged property, and $200 for late rent fees. The victim stated the amounts were estimates, and he did not provide any receipts. Based on the victim’s testimony, the court awarded $5,580 in restitution. Ramirez timely appealed. DISCUSSION Ramirez’s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. Counsel included a statement of the case and facts but argued no grounds for reversal of the judgment. Counsel asked this court to independently review the record for error. Pursuant to Anders, counsel identified the following issues to assist the court in its search of the record for error: 1) Whether the trial court 2 abused its discretion by ordering restitution based solely on the victim’s testimony; and 2) Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the amount of restitution ordered. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Ramirez in this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
MCCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
IRION, J.
HUFFMAN, J.* * Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 3
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12