Filed 1/15/19 P. v. Kuahuia 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
BENJAMIN MOHANEA KUAHUIA,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
G056560
(Super. Ct. No. 13WF0042)
O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Margaret R. Anderson, Judge. (Retired judge of the Orange Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Melissa Hill, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
A jury convicted Benjamin Kuahuia of commercial robbery and other offenses. The trial court awarded one of the victims $26,000 in restitution. Kuahuia appealed, and his appointed counsel filed a brief under the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Because our review of the record discloses no arguable issues, we affirm the restitution order.
I
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This is our third opinion in this case. In our first opinion, we affirmed Benjamin Kuahuia’s convictions for commercial robbery and other offenses. (See People v. Kuahuia (Feb. 28, 2017, G051802) [unpub. opn.].) In our second opinion, we partially affirmed a postjudgment criminal restitution order. We concluded the trial court erred in awarding a robbery victim $37,406.38, based in part on gross sales instead of net profits. We remanded the matter for the trial court to determine the victim’s net profits. (See People v. Kuahuia (June 14, 2017, G052850) [unpub. opn.].)
Following remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing where the victim testified and evidence about net profits was submitted. The court then awarded the victim $26,000 in restitution. After Kuahuia appealed, his appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issue, but asking this court to independently review the record on appeal. Kuahuia has not availed himself of the opportunity to file a supplemental brief (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106), nor has he requested to have appellate counsel relieved.
II
DISCUSSION
Following Wende guidelines, we have reviewed counsel’s brief and the appellate record. We have examined the record and found no arguable issue. Consequently, we affirm. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)
III
Disposition
The order is affirmed.
ARONSON, J.
WE CONCUR:
BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.
THOMPSON, J.
