Opinion
D081599
10-12-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOEY BYRON DIXON, Defendant and Appellant.
Joey Byron Dixon, in pro. per.; and Sandra Gillies, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment and order of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCN433376, Saba Sheibani and William Y. Wood, Judges. Affirmed.
Joey Byron Dixon, in pro. per.; and Sandra Gillies, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
HUFFMAN, ACTING P. J.
Joey Byron Dixon entered into a plea agreement under which he pleaded guilty to one count of corporal injury to a person with whom he was in a dating relationship (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior conviction for the same offense (§ 273.5, subd. (f)(1)), and that the victim was a person as defined in Family Code section 6211 and Penal Code section 1203.097, subdivision (a). Dixon also pleaded guilty to vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)(b)(1)). The parties agreed to a total term of two years eight months.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
The court sentenced Dixon in accordance with the plea agreement.
The court held a restitution hearing and imposed an order for restitution to the victim in the amount of $1299.51. Dixon filed a timely notice of appeal but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5).
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. However, although counsel asks us to independently review the record, counsel refuses to comply with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 by identifying any possible issues that counsel considered in evaluating the merits of this appeal. Apparently counsel believes identifying any possible issues would prevent the court from discharging its duty. We strongly disagree with counsel and disapprove of counsel's decision.
The record in this case is clear and quite brief. We are satisfied counsel's refusal has not deprived Dixon of a proper Wende review of the record.
We offered Dixon the opportunity to file his own brief. Dixon has responded with a one paragraph statement that the victim was not credible.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Appellate counsel has filed a brief summary of the facts presented at the restitution hearing. We incorporate the summary here for convenience.
On April 20, 2022, Joey Dixon was at A.R.'s apartment, playing a video game, and A.R. was cleaning up her kitchen.
Dixon became agitated and started throwing glasses and cups and a plate of food. Four big plates, four saucers, four cups and three glasses were damaged.
Dixon also threw some of A.R.'s pots and pans, denting them and breaking the handle off of one. He burned some of the other pans as he cooked something. She threw the pots and pans out.
After Dixon physically attacked her, A.R. went to the emergency room and was billed for treatment.
Trial counsel conceded Dixon owed restitution for a broken television and damaged bar stools, in the amount of $572.39 and $80, respectively.
The court ordered restitution for $442.62 in medical bills, plus the $652.39 in damage Dixon conceded, and discounted the claimed value of the dishware and pots and pans, ordering an additional $204.50 for that damage. It ordered Dixon to pay a total of $1299.51 in restitution.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. We have independently reviewed the record consistent with Wende. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Dixon on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment and restitution order are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: CASTILLO, J. RUBIN, J.