In re Charles P. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J232115
- Trial judge
- Carlos O. Armour
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Judith D. McConnell (author), Judith L. Haller, McINTYRE
Analysis
The trial court ordered the minor to pay $22,211 in victim restitution for vandalism and vehicle theft. The appellate court affirmed the judgment after an independent Wende review found no reasonably arguable issues.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order to pay victim restitution of $22,211“Minor appeals a juvenile court judgment directing him to pay victim restitution totaling $22,211.” | substantial evidence | not reached | agree with court The court performed an independent review of the record under Wende and found no reasonably arguable issues, including those regarding the sufficiency of evidence for the restitution amounts. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Mandates independent review of the record by appellate counsel when no issues are raised.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to identify potentially arguable issues for the court's independent review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly applied the Wende/Anders procedure for independent review. The opinion is procedurally sound but brief, relying on the absence of reasonably arguable issues rather than detailed legal analysis.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court, after minor admitted two counts of vandalism and one count of unlawfully taking a vehicle, ordered him to pay victim restitution of $5,696 to the car owner and $16,515 to the school, totaling $22,211, based on testimony and documents from the owner and the school's risk management specialist. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying four possible issues; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Victim restitution order of $22,211 ($5,696 to the car owner, $16,515 to the school) — whether supported by substantial evidence“The restitution amounts were based on documents and testimony provided by the car owner and the school's risk management specialist.” | substantial evidence | correct | agree with court The opinion recites testimony and documentary evidence from the car owner (appraisal range, replacement cost, photographs) and the school's risk management specialist (contractor invoices and employee costs) that rationally support the amounts awarded. Under Wende review, the court found no arguable issue, and the recited record supports that conclusion. |
Valuation of the destroyed 1996 BMW at $5,696 (including lost wages for the owner's attendance at the hearing)“After the car was destroyed, the owner searched appraisal reports for four months and found comparable vehicles valued between $4,700 and $6,200.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court The award falls within the comparable-vehicle range the owner documented ($4,700–$6,200) and is well below the $8,600 replacement cost; the record of upgraded features and excellent condition supports a value toward the upper end. A restitution court has broad discretion in valuation and this figure has a rational basis in the evidence. |
Inclusion in restitution of $2,430.58 paid by the school to salaried employees who supervised contractors and performed related repair work“whether the court abused its discretion in requiring restitution for amounts the school paid to salaried employees to repair damage caused by minor's conduct” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court The opinion does not analyze the issue beyond concluding it is not reasonably arguable. Employee time diverted to repairing damage caused by the offense is an economic loss to the victim, and the testimony that the costs were for supervising contractors and related repair work gives a rational basis for the award; nothing in the opinion suggests a legal error. |
Admission of hearsay evidence (documents) at the restitution hearing over a federal due process objection“whether the court violated minor's federal due process rights by admitting hearsay evidence at the restitution hearing” | unclear | correct | agree with court Restitution hearings are informal and the rules of evidence do not bar reliable hearsay; the documents here were presented through live witnesses (the owner and the risk management specialist) who were subject to cross-examination, so the due process concern is minimal. The opinion does not state its reasoning, but the conclusion that this is not an arguable issue is consistent with settled practice. |
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 frivolous may so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, summarized the evidentiary basis for each restitution component, considered the four potential issues counsel flagged, and affirmed after independent review; the recited record supports the result. The opinion offers no substantive analysis of the salaried-employee and hearsay questions and contains a minor citation inconsistency (Wende cited as both 25 Cal.3d and 26 Cal.3d), but nothing suggests a misreading of the law.
Opinion
Filed 12/30/14 In re Charles P. 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
In re CHARLES P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D065142 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J232115)
v. CHARLES P., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Carlos O.
Armour, Judge. Affirmed.
Heather L. Beugen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Minor appeals a juvenile court judgment directing him to pay victim restitution totaling $22,211. After independently reviewing the record for error (see People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442 (Wende)), we have not identified any reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
Minor and an accomplice stole a 1996 BMW 328i, drove it through the gate of a school, drove it around the school recklessly, and then set it on fire. Minor admitted to committing two counts of vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)) and one count of unlawfully taking and driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), in exchange for the dismissal of six other related charges.
The juvenile court ordered minor placed in a juvenile probation camp program for up to 365 days. The court later ordered him to pay victim restitution of $5,696 to the car owner and $16,515 to the school. The restitution amounts were based on documents and testimony provided by the car owner and the school's risk management specialist.
Specifically, the car owner testified and provided photographs showing that, although the car had been driven over 130,000 miles, it was in excellent condition when minor stole it. It had upgraded leather seats, stereo, tires, and rims.
The car owner originally paid $12,000 for the car in 1998. After the car was destroyed, the owner searched appraisal reports for four months and found comparable 2 vehicles valued between $4,700 and $6,200. He purchased a replacement car that was seven years newer for $8,600.
To testify at the restitution hearing, the car owner lost four hours of work. He was paid $61.45 an hour.
The school's risk management specialist testified and provided documents showing the school paid $10,170 to a contractor to repair damaged stucco, $3,915.40 to a contractor to replace the damaged gate, and $2,430.58 for school employees to supervise the contractors and perform other related repair work.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presented no argument for reversal and instead requested we independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 26 Cal.3d at pages 441-442. To assist our review, counsel identified several possible, but not reasonably arguable issues (see Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744). These issues were: (1) whether there was substantial evidence to support the restitution amounts, (2) whether the court abused its discretion in its valuation of the car; (3)
whether the court abused its discretion in requiring restitution for amounts the school paid to salaried employees to repair damage caused by minor's conduct; and (4) whether the court violated minor's federal due process rights by admitting hearsay evidence at the restitution hearing (Anders issues).
We granted minor an opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf. He did not do so.
3 Our independent review of the record, including the Anders issues identified by counsel, did not disclose any reasonably arguable appellate issue. Minor has been competently represented by counsel in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MCCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
MCINTYRE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12