People v. Corona CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS321722
- Trial judge
- Garry Haehnle
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- O'Rourke (author), Michele M. Castillo
Analysis
The trial court ordered defendant Corona to pay $10,783.76 in restitution to the victim's mother for lost wages and therapy costs following the death of her adult daughter. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Ordering restitution for the victim's mother's lost wages and therapy costs“The court ordered restitution in the amount of $10,783.76.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not explicitly analyze the merits of the restitution order or apply the abuse of discretion standard to the specific evidence. Instead, it relied on the Wende/Anders framework to state that it had independently reviewed the record and found 'no arguable issues for reversal.' While the court noted the issue was considered, it did not provide a substantive legal analysis of whether the trial court's discretion was properly exercised, effectively affirming the order based on the absence of identified error rather than a positive finding of correctness. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to independently review the record for error when counsel finds no issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel who believes an appeal is frivolous, requiring a brief and independent court review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its adherence to Wende/Anders requirements, as it confirms counsel's effort and the court's independent review. However, it is substantively thin because it fails to address the specific legal question of whether restitution is available for the non-economic and economic losses of a victim's family member, relying solely on the negative finding of 'no arguable issues' without citing the underlying restitution statutes or case law that would support the trial court's discretion.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual disposition unusual dispositionAfter Corona's convictions for vehicular manslaughter and fleeing the scene were affirmed on a prior appeal, the trial court held a restitution hearing and ordered him to pay $10,783.76 to the deceased victim's mother for lost wages and therapy expenses. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Corona filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed the restitution judgment.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order awarding victim restitution of $10,783.76 to the decedent's mother for lost wages ($5,984) and grief therapy costs ($4,799.76)“We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court A parent of a deceased victim is a derivative victim entitled to restitution under Penal Code section 1202.4, and mental health counseling expenses, lost wages attributable to the crime, and wages lost attending court proceedings are expressly recoverable categories; the mother's documented therapy costs and wage calculation furnish a rational basis for the amount, so no abuse of discretion is apparent from the summarized record. The opinion recites only counsel's summary and does not set out the trial court's reasoning, but nothing in it suggests error. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for error before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal lacks merit must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then examine the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, identifies the possible issue flagged by counsel, describes the restitution evidence, and affirms after independent review, which is a defensible result given that lost wages and counseling costs for a victim's parent are recoverable restitution. It does not cite Penal Code section 1202.4 or the governing abuse-of-discretion authority, and it relies on counsel's evidence summary rather than its own account of the trial court's findings, leaving the analysis thin.
Opinion
Filed 6/24/26 P. v. Corona 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, D086302
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS321722)
ESTEVAN FABIAN CORONA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Garry Haehnle, Judge. Affirmed. Laura Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2024, a jury convicted Esteban Fabian Corona of vehicular manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (c)(1)) and fleeing the scene of an accident (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (c)). Corona was sentenced to prison. The trial court reserved jurisdiction to conduct a restitution hearing. Corona appealed his conviction, and this court affirmed the convictions but remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing. (People v. Corona (Dec. 2, 2025, D084413) [nonpub. opn.].) The court calendared a restitution hearing to determine whether to order restitution for the victim’s mother. The court held a hearing on May 30, 2025. The court ordered restitution in the amount of $10,783.76. Corona filed a timely notice of appeal from the restitution judgment. Appellate counsel has filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Corona the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. Counsel has provided a summary of the evidence produced at the restitution hearing. We will incorporate the summary in this opinion for background information. In March 2020, Corona fled the scene of a collision after striking and killing a 21-year-old female pedestrian. The decedent’s mother submitted documentary evidence detailing her economic loss and testified that, due to her grief and anger following her daughter’s death, she had been unable to work as a driver for Amazon for two months. She also missed five days of work while attending Corona’s trial. She requested lost wages in the amount of $5,984, calculated based on her hourly wage at the time and the actual days she had been without income. She also testified that she had engaged in 84 therapy sessions, specifically to deal with her grief and anger resulting from the death of her daughter, and had paid the therapist a total of $4,799.76.
2 DISCUSSION As we have noted, counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error as required by Wende. To assist the court, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering restitution for losses incurred as a result of the death of her adult daughter. We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Corona in this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment of restitution is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.
CASTILLO, 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