Opinion
C084747
11-13-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRIAN RAMIREZ, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 16FE006817)
Appointed counsel for defendant Brian Ramirez has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. --------
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On April 3, 2016, defendant attempted to elude a pursuing police officer, despite the officer's marked car displaying a red light and sounding its siren. While so evading, defendant was speeding (driving in excess of 65 miles per hour) and driving recklessly (running multiple red lights & stop signs, & driving on sidewalks & on front yards) in a residential neighborhood. The pursuit ended when defendant crashed into an officer's car.
Defendant was charged with unlawful and reckless evading of a police vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a). On June 7, 2016, defendant pleaded no contest and was placed on probation for five years on the condition he serve 180 days in local custody. Defendant was also awarded custody credit and ordered to pay various fines and fees, with victim restitution to S.B. and the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department in an amount to be determined at a later date.
The probation department subsequently determined that defendant owed the sheriff's department $5,955.64, representing the cost of repairing the officer's patrol car. Defendant objected and requested a hearing.
A restitution hearing was held on March 20, 2017. Exhibits submitted to the court included video clips of the collision. Defendant argued that the collision was the result of the actions by both he and the police officer driving the involved patrol car and, therefore, the loss should be apportioned according to contributory negligence principles under People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7. The court determined that contributory negligence did not apply and ordered restitution in the amount of $5,955.64 payable to the sheriff's department. Restitution to S.B. remained undetermined.
Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Blease, Acting P. J. We concur: /s/_________
Butz, J. /s/_________
Murray, J.