legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Cervantes CA4/3

abundy's Membership Status

Registration Date: Jun 01, 2017
Usergroup: Administrator
Listings Submitted: 0 listings
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Last seen: 06:01:2017 - 11:31:27

Biographical Information

Contact Information

Submission History

Most recent listings:
In re K.P. CA6
P. v. Price CA6
P. v. Alvarez CA6
P. v. Shaw CA6
Marriage of Lejerskar CA4/3

Find all listings submitted by abundy
P. v. Cervantes CA4/3
By
02:21:2018

Filed 1/23/18 P. v. Cervantes CA4/3






NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROBERTO ROQUE CERVANTES,

Defendant and Appellant.


G055292

(Super. Ct. No. 14CF0873)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Denise de Bellefeuille, Judge. (Retired judge of the Santa Barbara Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Jean Ballantine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *
A jury convicted defendant Roberto Roque Cervantes of one count of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child under 10 (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a), all undesignated statutory references are to this code); three counts of oral copulation or sexual penetration with a child under 10 (§ 288.7, subd. (b)); and four counts of lewd acts on a child under 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)). The court sentenced defendant to a term of 48 years to life in prison. Following contested restitution hearings, the court ordered a total of $9,072 in restitution for victim mental health benefits.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal from the restitution order.
We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel filed a brief summarizing the proceedings and facts of the case and advised the court she found no arguable issues to assert on defendant’s behalf. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders); People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) To assist us in our independent review, counsel suggested the potential issue discussed below.
Counsel and this court both notified defendant that he could file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. However, we received no supplemental brief from him and the time to file one has passed.
FACTS
At the time of the offenses, defendant lived in the same household with the victim, H.S., her mother, M.S., and her brother, A.R. Victim restitution claims for mental health benefits were submitted by the Victim Compensation Board in the following amounts: $3,483.00 for H.S., $2,916.00 for M.S., and $2,673.00 for A.R. The court conducted two restitution hearings on these claims. At the first hearing defense counsel conceded the restitution claim for H.S., but argued restitution could not be ordered for M.S. or A.R., because they were not “named victims.” At the second hearing, the prosecution argued restitution could be ordered for M.S. and A.R. pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (k)(3)(E). The court agreed and ordered restitution for H.S., M.S. and A.R. as requested.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the entire record as required under Anders and Wende, including the potential issue suggested by counsel set out and summarily discussed below, and we have found no arguable issues on appeal.
Counsel suggested we consider: “Whether the direct victim’s mother [M.S.] and brother [A.R.], who lived in the same household with the defendant and direct victim [H.S.] at the time of the offenses, are ‘derivative victims’ for whom a victim restitution order for mental health benefits is authorized by law.”
We conclude that M.S. and A.R. are both victims for restitution purposes. (§ 1202.4, subd. (k)(3)(E) [“victim” includes parents and siblings, persons living in the household, and the primary caretaker of a minor victim]; Gov. Code, § 13951, subd. (c) [“derivative victims” are victims]; see People v. Broussard (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1067, 1075; People v. O’Neal (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 817, 820-821 [brother is a derivative victim].)
Thus, the court did not err in awarding them restitution.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



THOMPSON, J.

WE CONCUR:



BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.



ARONSON, J.




Description A jury convicted defendant Roberto Roque Cervantes of one count of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child under 10; three counts of oral copulation or sexual penetration with a child under 10; and four counts of lewd acts on a child under 14. The court sentenced defendant to a term of 48 years to life in prison. Following contested restitution hearings, the court ordered a total of $9,072 in restitution for victim mental health benefits.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal from the restitution order.
We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel filed a brief summarizing the proceedings and facts of the case and advised the court she found no arguable issues to assert on defendant’s behalf. To assist us in our independent review, counsels suggested the potential issue discussed below.
Counsel and this court both notified defendant that he could file a supplemental brief on his own behalf.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.
Views 10 views. Averaging 10 views per day.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale