In re V.H. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J241608
- Trial judge
- Kathleen M. Lewis
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Cynthia Aaron, Patricia D. Benke
Analysis
The juvenile court ordered the minor and her mother jointly and severally liable for $24,730.10 in restitution to the California Victim Compensation Board. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order of $24,730.10 restitution to the California Victim Compensation Board with joint and several liability for the minor and her mother.“The court ordered restitution in the amount of $24,730.10. The court found the Minor and her mother (K.Z.) jointly and severally liable for the restitution ordered.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court conducted an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende and found no arguable issues for reversal, thereby affirming the trial court's restitution order. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to identify arguable issues or file a brief stating no issues were found, and requires the court to independently review the record for error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires independent review of the record by the appellate court when counsel files a brief stating no arguable issues exist.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing an appeal where counsel identifies no issues. However, it is substantively thin because it does not address the specific legal arguments regarding the calculation of restitution or the joint and several liability of the mother, relying solely on the absence of identified errors.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionAfter true findings on a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition for assault and battery with great bodily injury, the juvenile court ordered the Minor and her mother jointly and severally liable for $24,730.10 in victim restitution payable to the California Victim Compensation Board. On the Minor's appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed the restitution order.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order requiring the Minor (jointly and severally with her mother) to pay $24,730.10 in victim restitution to the California Victim Compensation Board“We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | unclear | correct | unsure The opinion is a Wende/Anders independent-review disposition; it does not state the standard of review for restitution orders (ordinarily abuse of discretion) or explain how the $24,730.10 figure was derived from the Board's records, even though the victim's testimony referenced roughly $5,000 in lost-income payments from the Board. The court states it reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issue, which is the proper Wende procedure, but the opinion itself gives too little to independently verify the amount or the joint and several parental liability finding. |
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 arguable error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous must so advise the court and may identify issues that arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, offered the Minor a chance to file a supplemental brief, and independently reviewed the record before affirming, which is a defensible disposition. It does not, however, explain the basis for the $24,730.10 amount (which exceeds the approximately $5,000 lost-income figure mentioned in the facts) or address the statutory basis for the mother's joint and several liability, leaving gaps a reader cannot fill from the opinion.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 11/17/20 In re V.H. 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 V.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D077530 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J241608)
v. V.H., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kathleen M. Lewis, Judge. Affirmed. Christine M. Aros, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No response from Plaintiff and Respondent. In June 2019, following an adjudication hearing the court made true findings on a petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging V.H. (the Minor) committed several offenses. The court found the Minor had committed assault by force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)). The court also found the Minor personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim within the meaning of sections 12022.7, subdivision (a) and 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8). This court affirmed the adjudication in an unpublished opinion filed May 27, 2020. (People v. V.H. (May 27, 2020, D076300) [nonpub. opn.].) In March 2020, the juvenile court held a hearing on a request for victim restitution from the California Victim Compensation Board. Following the hearing and the review of records submitted by the Board, the court ordered restitution in the amount of $24,730.10. The court found the Minor and her mother (K.Z.) jointly and severally liable for the restitution ordered. The Minor has filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating she has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered the Minor the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts regarding restitution are well summarized in the Minor’s opening brief. We will adopt the summary for convenience. The victim agreed the restitution review hearing was about her loss of income of approximately $5,000, which she received from the Victim Compensation Board. She was out of work for a whole year. State disability paid 50 percent of her wages and the victim compensation board paid another 23 percent. She provided documents showing lost wages and medical records 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 to the compensation board. Her doctor indicated she was able to work for three hours a day. Before the incident, the victim supplemented her income by creating costumes and fashion but that was just a “side hustle” and did not make income for her house. She had a “real job” which paid her $16 an hour. She is now partially blind and has an implant in her left eye. The victim did not know whether V.H. had a restraining order against her. However, according to Exhibit 3, a restraining order was obtained against her on February 17, 2017, before the incident in 2018, and was set to expire on February 17, 2022. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified one issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Did the court err in ordering $24,730.10 in restitution to be paid to the Victim Compensation Board. 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 the Minor on this appeal.
3 DISPOSITION The restitution order is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12