Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of No. 08WF0351Orange County, Luis A. Rodriguez, Judge.
James R. Bostwick, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
IKOLA, J.
Defendant Vy Van Hoang pleaded guilty to one count of driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage causing a collision which caused bodily injury to another person. (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a).) Defendant was granted probation with conditions including paying victim restitution in an amount to be determined by the probation deparment. Based upon “copies of bills, receipts, and estimates” provided by the victim, the probation department set restitution at $19,830.44. Defendant contested that amount, and the matter was set for hearing. At the hearing, the People submitted a package of documents including “copies of medical bills, correspondence to American Claims, and health insurance claim forms” which was received into evidence. The court reviewed this material, and asked defendant’s counsel whether he was submitting on the amount reported to the court by the probation department. Counsel had nothing to add. The court ordered victim restitution of $19,691.50, an amount slightly less than had been reflected in the probation report, but which matched the amount shown in the People’s exhibit. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against defendant, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on defendant’s behalf. Defendant was given 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from defendant. We have examined the record and have not found an arguable issue. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Accordingly, we affirm the postjudgment victim restitution order
DISCUSSION
“[I]n every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct, the court shall require that the defendant make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount established by court order, based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim or victims or any other showing to the court.... The court shall order full restitution unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so, and states them on the record.” (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f).) “The defendant has the right to a hearing before a judge to dispute the determination of the amount of restitution.” (Id. at subd. (f)(1).) Here, the probation officer collected documentation reflecting the victim’s economic loss and made a report to the court concerning the officer’s finding regarding that amount; defendant contested the amount; defendant was given notice of a hearing to determine the correct amount; but at the hearing offered no evidence or argument contesting the amount claimed.
Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel suggested we consider whether it was prejudicial error for the court to refuse to admit into evidence a copy of the police report. It was not. There was no offer of proof suggesting that the police report contained any information relevant to the determination of the victim’s economic loss.
Counsel also suggested we review whether the evidence was sufficient to support the restitution order. The evidence was sufficient. “‘When the probation report includes information on the amount of the victim’s loss and a recommendation as to the amount of restitution, the defendant must come forward with contrary information to challenge that amount.’” (People v. Keichler (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1048.) “Absent a challenge by the defendant, an award of the amount specified in the probation report is not an abuse of discretion.” (Ibid.) Here, the court awarded slightly less than the amount specified in the probation report, and defendant offered no challenge to that amount at the hearing.
We have reviewed the record and have not found an arguable issue on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The postjudgment victim restitution order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: O’LEARY, ACTING P. J., ARONSON, J.