People v. Alarid CA2/3

Opinion

Filed 9/4/26 P. v. Alarid CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, B346133

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA100144) v.

JOSE GABRIEL SANCHEZ ALARID,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David W. Stuart, Judge. Affirmed. Michael Reed, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗ Jose Gabriel Sanchez Alarid appeals from a postjudgment order directing him to pay $606,525 in victim restitution. Appointed counsel filed a brief that raises no issues and asks us to examine the record ourselves under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We notified Sanchez Alarid that he could file a supplemental brief within 30 days. He did not. We have reviewed the record and find no arguable issues. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In April 2023, the People charged Sanchez Alarid in 13 counts with sexually abusing Leslie G., his partner’s daughter, over seven years beginning when she was 11.1 On November 29, 2023, before the preliminary hearing, he pled no contest to count 2, continuous sexual abuse of a child (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a)), and admitted that the victim was particularly vulnerable (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3)). The parties stipulated to the upper term of 16 years. The remaining counts were dismissed subject to a Harvey waiver for restitution purposes. (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.) The court sentenced Sanchez Alarid on December 12, 2023, in accordance with the agreement. Leslie G. and her mother, Angelica L., each gave a victim impact statement. The court waived all fines and fees so that any money Sanchez Alarid earned in prison would go to restitution, and it reserved the restitution amount for a later hearing. At sentencing, Sanchez Alarid waived his presence at the further hearings then set, and counsel joined in the waiver. No appeal was taken from the judgment.

1 We refer to the victim and her mother by first name and last initial to protect their privacy. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(4), (10).)

2 The People filed a restitution brief in April 2024. Relying on People v. Smith (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 415, they asked the court for a total of $600,000 based on noneconomic loss at $50,000 per year: 10 years for Leslie G. (ages 11 to 20) plus two years for Angelica L. The hearing was held on March 11, 2025. Leslie G. and her mother were present and prepared to testify. Counsel for Sanchez Alarid declined to cross-examine them and stipulated to their impact statements. He argued the requested sum was excessive and the court should award less. The prosecutor represented that Angelica L. had also incurred $6,525 in economic loss for 87 counseling sessions at $75 each. The court used Smith’s $50,000-per-year calculation, considered the categories of noneconomic harm described in CACI No. 3905A, and ordered $500,000 to Leslie G. and $106,525 to Angelica L. It declined to impose statutory interest. The court found the amounts large but not shocking to the conscience. Sanchez Alarid filed a timely notice of appeal from the restitution order. (Pen. Code, § 1237, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.308(a).) DISCUSSION The only order before us is the restitution order of March 11, 2025. The judgment entered in December 2023 was not appealed and is final. Nothing about the plea, the term, the admitted aggravating circumstance, the registration requirement, the protective order, or the custody credits is within our reach. As to our review, Wende requires a court to examine the entire record when appointed counsel files a no-issue brief on a first appeal as of right from a criminal judgment. In People v. 3 Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 226–228, our Supreme Court held that Wende review is not required in an appeal from an order denying postconviction relief under Penal Code section 1172.6, because such a proceeding carries no constitutional right to counsel. Whether Wende governs an appeal from an order fixing restitution that was reserved at sentencing is a different question. We need not answer it because we have exercised our discretion to review the record independently. (Delgadillo, at p. 232.) Having done so, we are satisfied that Sanchez Alarid’s counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110–111; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) Restitution for noneconomic loss is authorized for felony violations of Penal Code section 288.5. (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f)(3)(F).) The court had before it the victims’ impact statements, counseling documentation, and the probation report. It applied the $50,000- per-year calculation based on evidence of the harm each victim actually suffered. Its order was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

4 DISPOSITION The order is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS ADAMS, P. J.

We concur:

HANASONO, J.

ASHWORTH, J.* * Retired Judge of the El Dorado Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.