In re Mark L. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. JCM243488
- Trial judge
- Matthew C. Braner
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Cynthia Aaron
Analysis
The trial court ordered the juvenile and his mother to pay restitution for medical costs, lost wages, and lost vacation time, finding them jointly and severally liable with the mother's liability capped at $45,000. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Award of restitution for hospital and medical costs paid by insurance, lost wages, and lost vacation time“We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The appellate court conducted an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende and Anders v. California. It identified four potential issues raised by counsel but concluded that none were arguable grounds for reversal. The court affirmed the judgment without addressing the specific merits of the restitution calculations or the joint and several liability determination. |
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 exist, and requires the court to independently review the record for error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from an appeal by filing a brief identifying potentially meritorious issues and requesting the court to review the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing appeals where counsel finds no arguable issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it lists four specific potential issues regarding restitution and liability but fails to provide any legal reasoning or analysis explaining why those issues are not arguable, relying solely on the conclusion that no errors were found.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court, after Mark L. admitted assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury and a great-bodily-injury allegation, held a contested restitution hearing and ordered him to pay the victim's mother $807.60 in lost wages, $950 in medical copayments, and $197,797.11 in hospital and medical costs (largely paid by insurance), with the Minor's mother jointly and severally liable up to the $45,000 cap of Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.7. Appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying four possible issues, the Minor filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Restitution award to the victim's mother for hospital and medical costs ($197,797.11) that were mostly paid by health insurance“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 | agree with court The opinion does not state a standard or discuss the issue, but California law permits a direct victim to recover full medical expenses even when a private insurer paid them; the insurer is not the direct victim and may seek reimbursement from the victim, so the award is consistent with settled authority. Nothing in the opinion suggests the court lacked a factual basis for the figure. |
Restitution award for the victim's mother's lost wages and lost vacation time“The victim’s mother and father testified regarding their economic losses in the form of lost wages, lost vacation time, and hospital and medical costs.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 expressly includes wages or profits lost by the parent of a minor victim while caring for the injured child, and lost vacation time used for that purpose is an economic loss supported by testimony at the contested hearing. The modest award ($807.60) was based on direct testimony. |
Order making the Minor's mother jointly and severally liable for restitution, capped at $45,000 under section 730.7, though she was not told the amount until after disposition“The court found the Minor and his mother were jointly and severally liable for the restitution, with the mother’s responsibility capped at $45,000 per section 730.7.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Section 730.7 makes a parent presumptively liable with the minor up to the Civil Code section 1714.1 cap, and the amount of restitution is routinely fixed at a later hearing; the opinion does not indicate the mother was denied notice of or participation in the contested hearing. On this sparse record there is no identified legal error, though the opinion gives no analysis. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the reviewing court must independently review the entire record for arguable error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's independent review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, listed counsel's four potential issues, and independently reviewed the record, and the result is consistent with California restitution law allowing victims to recover insured medical expenses and parents' lost wages. The opinion offers no reasoning or authority on any of the identified issues, so a reader cannot verify the analysis from the opinion itself.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 2/3/22 In re Mark L. 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 Mark L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D079337 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JCM243488)
v. MARK L., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Matthew C. Braner, Judge. Affirmed. Britton Donaldson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. A petition was filed in the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 602 alleging Mark L., a juvenile (the Minor), had committed criminal offenses. The Minor admitted one count of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and admitted he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (Pen. Code, § 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). The victim had been hospitalized for significant injuries. Accordingly, the court set a restitution hearing date. The court held a contested restitution hearing. The victim’s mother and father testified regarding their economic losses in the form of lost wages, lost vacation time, and hospital and medical costs. The vast bulk of the medical and hospital costs were paid by insurance. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court made the following awards of restitution to the victim’s mother: $807.60 for lost wages; $950 for medical copayments; and $197,797.11 for hospital and medical costs. The court found the Minor and his mother were jointly and severally liable for the restitution, with the mother’s responsibility capped at $45,000 per section 730.7. The Minor filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating counsel 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 his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.2 1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.
2 The facts of the underlying offense are not relevant to the review of the record in this case. 2 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 the following possible issues which were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Whether the court’s award of restitution for the juvenile victim’s hospital expenses paid by his health insurance was proper if the victim’s mother decides to keep the funds and does not reimburse the insurance company. 2. Whether the court’s award of restitution for the juvenile victim’s hospital expenses paid by his health insurance was proper if the victim’s mother had a prior agreement with the insurance company to reimburse them. 3. Whether the court’s award of restitution for the mother’s lost vacation time was proper. 4. Whether the court’s award of restitution for which defendant’s mother is severally responsible should be limited as she was not informed of the amount until after disposition of the case. 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 judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
AARON, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12