Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FWV027771. Shahla Sabet, Judge.
Victoria Matthews, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
McKinster, J.
I
INTRODUCTION
On July 11, 2003, the trial court sentenced defendant and appellant Santos Anthony Villegas to nine years in state prison after he (1) pleaded guilty to carjacking under Penal Code section 215; and (2) admitted the allegation that he committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1). The trial court ordered defendant to pay a $200 restitution fine under section 1202.4, with another $200 parole revocation restitution fine stayed pending successful completion of parole, and reserved jurisdiction as to victim restitution. Defendant waived his right to be present at subsequent restitution hearings.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
On August 19, 2003, the trial court held a hearing to determine the amount of victim restitution. Defendant was not present but he was represented by counsel. Following stipulation by counsel, the court ordered defendant to pay $1,489.33 in victim restitution to Ruben Candelaria, and $120 to Cynthia Moya.
On May 21, 2010, defendant filed a motion to reduce the restitution fine and victim restitution order based on inability to pay. On May 24, 2010, the trial court denied defendant’s motion.
On June 22, 2010, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court’s denial of his motion for reduction of the restitution order.
II
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant appeals from the court’s order denying his motion for reduction of the victim restitution order. Therefore, the facts underlying defendant’s convictions are not applicable to the issue on appeal.
III
ANALYSIS
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Hollenhorst, Acting P.J., King, J.