Opinion
D077005
06-12-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE JESUS HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Forest M. Wilkerson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. SCN193698) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael K. Kirkman, Judge. Affirmed. Forest M. Wilkerson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2005, Jose Hernandez pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol resulting in injury to the victim (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)). Hernandez was ordered to pay $44, 972.00 in restitution to the victim. At some point prior to the current events, the restitution payments were assigned to The Northern Trust Company which handled the victim's trust. The victim in this case subsequently died of causes unrelated to the offense in this case. After the trust company settled all the trust affairs except for the continuing restitution payment, the company requested the payment be made to the beneficiaries of the victim's trust so the trust company could relinquish control of the victim's trust. Hernandez objected to the modification, but the court granted the request and modified the restitution order as requested.
Hernandez filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating he has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Hernandez the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. To assist the court in its review of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue he considered in his evaluation of the potential merits of this appeal: Did the court err in allowing a change in the representative payee of the victim's estate in order for the beneficiaries to receive the remaining restitution owed to the victim.
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende and Anders. We have not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Hernandez on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order modifying the payees of the victim's restitution is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR: O'ROURKE, J. IRION, J.