People v. Urzua CA3

Opinion

Filed 9/15/26 P. v. Urzua CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo)

THE PEOPLE, C104743 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR2023-1268) v. JERRY URZUA, Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Jerry Urzua asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In July 2022, Urzua and the victim were riding their motorcycles. Urzua, who was intoxicated, sped up and collided with the victim from behind, causing both riders to fall to the ground. Urzua fled, and the victim died at the scene. Urzua was charged with vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (b); count 1), hit and run with an injury (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a); count 2), and driving under the influence causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a); count 3). Enhancements for great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)) and fleeing the scene (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (c)), and aggravating circumstances (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421) were also alleged.

1 In August 2024, Urzua pled no contest to count 1 and admitted the fleeing-the- scene enhancement. The remaining counts and allegations were dismissed. The parties agreed to an aggregate six-year four-month prison term (the low term of 16 months plus five years consecutive for the enhancement). The trial court sentenced Urzua accordingly in October 2024. The court also imposed a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), a corresponding $300 parole revocation fine (suspended unless parole is revoked) (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), a $40 court operations fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373). The court awarded one day of custody credit. During the sentencing hearing, the victim’s sister gave a victim impact statement. In August 2025, the prosecution filed a restitution motion seeking direct victim restitution of $7,989.12 for the victim’s wife, including $5,674.50 in funeral expenses and $2,314.62 in lost wages due to attending court hearings. The prosecution further sought $8,885.42 for the victim’s sister, including $6,389.97 in lost wages due to attending court and $2,495.45 for mileage expenses to attend court. According to the prosecution, the victim had a large family, and he was especially close to his sister. The prosecution submitted receipts for the funeral expenses and details regarding the wife’s and sister’s hours of work missed, hourly pay rates, and the sister’s miles traveled. Urzua objected to the expenses for the victim’s sister, arguing she was neither a witness to the crime nor otherwise called to testify during trial. After holding a hearing, the trial court ordered direct victim restitution in the amounts requested by the prosecution. Urzua timely appealed. He did not request a certificate of probable cause. DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Urzua was advised by 2 counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from Urzua. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Urzua. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

/s/ EARL, P. J.

We concur:

/s/ BOULWARE EURIE, J.

/s/ DAMRELL, J.