Filed 11/9/18 P. v. Molina CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JUAN MOLINA, JR.,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
F076731
(Super. Ct. No. BF159213A)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County. Michael E. Dellostritto, Judge.
Kendall Dawson Wasley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appointed counsel for defendant Juan Molina, Jr., asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. He responded, raising trial issues, not restitution issues. Our review of the entire record reveals no arguable issues on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
We provide the following brief description of the history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On May 23, 2016, a jury convicted defendant of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor destruction of documentary evidence (Pen. Code, § 135; count 2).
On July 13, 2016, the trial court sentenced defendant to 15 years to life in prison on count 1, plus 180 concurrent days on count 2. The court ordered that defendant pay restitution to the victim’s family in an amount to be determined. The court also ordered various fines and fees.
On July 13, 2016, defendant filed a notice of appeal in case No. F074033.
On December 19, 2017, a restitution hearing was held. The trial court heard arguments and considered the victim impact statement and a letter from probation. The court ordered defendant to pay the victim’s family $10,333.63 to cover the victim’s funeral expenses.
The same day, defendant filed a notice of appeal from the postjudgment restitution order in the present case.
DISCUSSION
The supplemental brief submitted by defendant addresses trial issues, not restitution issues. These issues are not appropriate for this appeal from the restitution order.
We have undertaken an examination of the entire record regarding the restitution order, and we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The restitution order is affirmed.
* Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Snauffer, J.
