gno.law

People v. Stiles CA2/6

California Court of Appeal · B321005 · 2022-11-29 · Unpublished

Area
criminal
Panel
Arthur Gilbert (author), Kenneth R. Yegan, Hernaldo J. Baltodano

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

Filed 11/29/22 P. v. Stiles CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B321005 (Super. Ct. No 19F-09422) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

CHELSEA STILES,

Defendant and Appellant.

Chelsea Stiles appeals an order granting victim restitution in the amount of $6,224.69 following her conviction of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a).) The trial court held a restitution hearing. At that hearing Stiles’s counsel advised the court that “Stiles would be submitting on the issue of restitution.” The court ordered Stiles to pay $6,224.69 to the California Victim’s Compensation Fund. We appointed counsel to represent Stiles on this appeal. After examination of the record, her counsel filed an opening brief requesting the court to make an independent review under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have independently reviewed the record. On October 7, 2022, we sent a letter to Stiles advising her that she had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which she wished us to consider. She did not file a supplemental brief and did not respond to our letter. After examination of the record, we are satisfied that Stiles’s attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441, 443.) The judgment (order) is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J. We concur:

YEGAN, J.

BALTODANO, J.

2 Denise De Bellefeuille, Judge Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo ______________________________ Mark R. Feeser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Cites, in this corpus