People v. Ortiz CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D079675 · 2022-04-20 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN424362
Trial judge: Sim Von Kalinowski
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Cynthia Aaron, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:52Z · confidence high

The trial court sentenced the defendant to the stipulated term of imprisonment and ordered her to pay $2,469 in restitution for items missing from a stolen vehicle. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Order to pay restitution for items missing from the stolen car “Whether the court erred in ordering Ortiz to pay restitution for the items missing from the stolen car.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court identified the restitution order as a potential issue but stated it had reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issues for reversal, effectively affirming the trial court's order without detailed analysis.

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 mandates the court to independently review the record for error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record to ensure the defendant's rights are protected.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for appointed counsel appeals. It accurately reflects that the court performed the required independent review and found no errors in the record.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

Ortiz pleaded guilty to unlawful taking and driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), received the stipulated low term of 16 months concurrent with another case, and after a restitution hearing was ordered to pay $2,469 in victim restitution for items taken from the stolen car. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying the restitution order as a possible issue; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Victim restitution order of $2,469 for items missing from the stolen vehicle following a contested restitution hearing “At the completion of the hearing, the court ordered Ortiz to pay restitution for items taken from the stolen car. Restitution was set in the amount of $2,469.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion does not state the standard of review or analyze the restitution order; it simply reports that after Wende/Anders independent review no arguable issue was found. The facts recited show Allard took the car on June 2 and Ortiz was found driving it on June 8, so whether the missing items were lost through conduct attributable to Ortiz's offense of conviction is a genuine question under People v. Martinez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1093, which limits section 1202.4 restitution for non-probation defendants to losses caused by the crime of conviction. Without the restitution hearing record quoted in the opinion, I cannot say the trial court erred, but the opinion gives no reasoning on the one issue counsel flagged.
Acceptance of guilty plea and imposition of stipulated 16-month low term concurrent with another case “The plea agreement included a stipulation that Ortiz would be sentenced to the low term of 16 months to be served concurrently with the sentence in another case. She was sentenced to the stipulated term of imprisonment.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The sentence matched the stipulated plea term, and the appeal is a Wende review; nothing in the opinion suggests any defect in the plea or sentence, and a defendant who receives the bargained-for sentence ordinarily cannot challenge it on appeal.

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 should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
missed: People v. Martinez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1093 — Where a defendant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment rather than probation, victim restitution under Penal Code section 1202.4 is limited to losses caused by the criminal conduct for which the defendant was convicted.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure and reaches a defensible result given that counsel found no arguable issue and Ortiz filed no supplemental brief. It offers no analysis of the one issue counsel flagged—restitution for items missing from a car that another person had taken days before Ortiz was found driving it—so the reader cannot tell whether the causation limit of People v. Martinez was considered.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 4/20/22 P. v. Ortiz 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

THE PEOPLE, D079675

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No.SCN424362)

STEPHANIE ORTIZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Sim Von Kalinowski, Judge. Affirmed. Britton Donaldson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Stephanie Ortiz pleaded guilty in this case to unlawful taking and driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). The plea agreement included a stipulation that Ortiz would be sentenced to the low term of 16 months to be served concurrently with the sentence in another case. She was sentenced to the stipulated term of imprisonment. The court held a subsequent restitution hearing. At the completion of the hearing, the court ordered Ortiz to pay restitution for items taken from the stolen car. Restitution was set in the amount of $2,469. Ortiz 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 Ortiz the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS Appellate counsel has provided an accurate summary of the facts of the offense. We will incorporate the statement here for convenience. “This appeal involves a plea of guilty. “On June 2, 2021, Rosa Caudillo and Taylor Allard spent the night together. The next morning, Allard asked to borrow Caudillo’s 2008 Nissan. Caudillo denied the request. Sometime between 8:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., Allard took the keys from inside the victim's home and left with the vehicle. Caudillo tried to get a hold of Allard several times and left messages demanding the return of her vehicle. “On June 4, 2021, Caudillo was told by an unidentified third party that someone took the vehicle from Allard. Caudillo reported the theft to the police. “On June 8, 2021, at about 6:45 p.m., an Escondido police officer on patrol observed the stolen vehicle in the area of Valley Parkway and Bear Valley Parkway and conducted a felony hot stop. Stephanie Ortiz was driving the vehicle and the passenger was Jason Ramirez.

2 “Caudillo responded to the scene to retrieve her vehicle, and both she and Ortiz commented that they knew each other. Caudillo said she met Ortiz for the first time in a brief interaction with Allard on the day of the theft. A few days later, she ran into Ortiz again and told her the car had been stolen and asked if Ortiz knew where the car or Allard was. Ortiz said she did not know. Ortiz was then arrested and read her rights. A record check confirmed Ortiz was on parole for robbery and had recently been released on bail on two separate offenses.” 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 issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the court erred in ordering Ortiz to pay restitution for the items missing from the stolen car. 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 Ortiz on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

AARON, J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12