People v. Grigs CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS322399
- Trial judge
- Garry G. Haehnle
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Michele M. Castillo (author), Buchanan, Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court ordered the defendant to pay $56,500 in victim restitution following a guilty plea to second-degree burglary. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order setting victim restitution at $56,500“On July 14, 2023, the trial court ordered Grigs to pay $56,500 in victim restitution jointly and severally with Grigs’ co-defendant.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not explicitly analyze the trial court's application of the abuse of discretion standard because it found no reasonably arguable issues on independent review. The court affirmed the order without addressing the specific merits of the restitution amount or the joint and several liability determination. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record for error when no issues are raised in the brief.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues while urging no grounds for reversal, allowing the court to conduct an independent review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a record where counsel identifies no issues. However, it is a summary disposition that does not engage with the specific legal arguments or evidence regarding the restitution amount, relying solely on the absence of 'reasonably arguable' issues.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court, after Grigs pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary and was sentenced to two years in state prison, held a contested restitution hearing and ordered him to pay $56,500 in victim restitution jointly and severally with his co-defendant. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Grigs filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order setting victim restitution at $56,500 ($52,000 for stolen property, $2,000 for lost wages or profits, $2,500 for therapy), imposed jointly and severally with the co-defendant“Did the trial court abuse its discretion in setting the amount of victim restitution?” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court The opinion describes evidentiary support for the award: an itemized list of 74 stolen items with online price printouts, and the victim's sworn testimony explaining how the list was compiled from the burglary video and that the amount understated his losses. A victim's statement of loss is prima facie evidence shifting the burden to the defendant, and nothing in the opinion suggests Grigs rebutted it. The court did not expressly state or apply the standard; it simply reported finding no arguable issue after Wende review, which is consistent with the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard counsel identified. On the facts recited, the award appears rationally supported. |
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 before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to 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 plea, sentence, and restitution evidence, identified the issue counsel flagged, and found no arguable error, a defensible result given the itemized loss list and victim testimony. It did not, however, articulate the restitution standard of review or cite restitution-specific authority, nor address whether full Wende review is required for an appeal from a post-judgment restitution order, so the analysis is conclusory.
Opinion
Filed 6/26/24 P. v. Grigs 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, D082707
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS322399)
JAMES RILEY GRIGS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Garry G. Haehnle, Judge. Affirmed. Charles Thomas Anderson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. James Riley Grigs appeals from a restitution order following his guilty plea to second-degree burglary. His appointed counsel filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We informed Grigs of his right to personally file a brief, and he has not done so. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm. I. On May 20, 2022, an amended complaint was filed charging Grigs with second-degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459; count 1) and grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a); count 2). The complaint further alleged that Grigs had been convicted of two prior strikes (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i); § 1170.12), and that the prior strikes required any sentence to be served in state prison (Pen. Code, § 1170, subds. (f) & (h)(3)). On August 10, 2022, Grigs pleaded guilty to the second-degree burglary count in exchange for dismissal of the remaining count and allegations. In pleading guilty, Grigs admitted he entered “a locked commercial business with the intent to take property of another worth $950 and [permanently] deprive the owner of that property[.]” Grigs also initialed and signed a felony advisement of rights and consequences plea form guilty. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Grigs to two years in state prison. The remaining count and allegations were dismissed. The court set victim restitution for a future hearing, for which Grigs waived his presence. At the contested hearing on July 11, 2023, the People requested $56,500 in victim restitution. The $56,500 amount consisted of $52,000 for stolen property, $2,000 for lost wages or lost profits, and $2,500 for therapy sessions. In support, the People provided a list of 74 items stolen during the burglary with printouts of online sale prices for the stolen items. The victim also testified at the hearing regarding the requested restitution. He stated the stolen items included personal and business property. He explained he created the list of stolen items by watching a video 2 of the burglary and documenting what items were carried out of his business. He believed the overall amount requested was “light” and would not cover the losses completely. On July 14, 2023, the trial court ordered Grigs to pay $56,500 in victim restitution jointly and severally with Grigs’ co-defendant. On August 31, 2023, Grigs filed a notice of appeal stating he was appealing from the restitution order. Grigs did not request a certificate of probable cause. II. Grigs’ appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende and Anders, setting forth a statement of the case and statement of facts, urging no grounds for reversal of the judgment, and asking this court to independently review the record for error. Pursuant to Anders, counsel identifies the following issue to assist the court in its search of the record for error: Did the trial court abuse its discretion in setting the amount of victim restitution? 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 Grigs on this appeal. III. The judgment is affirmed. CASTILLO, J.
WE CONCUR:
BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.
KELETY, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12