Opinion
C085981
06-22-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GAVIN RASMUSSEN, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 62107126)
Appointed counsel for defendant Gavin Rasmussen asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal from the trial court's order denying defendant's motion to modify a restitution order. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Assuming without deciding that an appeal from such an order is subject to Wende review, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. We will affirm the trial court's order denying the motion to modify the restitution order.
I
Around June 17, 2011, defendant and a compatriot stole a car that was parked in front of the victim's home. The victim gave chase and confronted the suspected thieves. Defendant stabbed the victim approximately four times in the back and abdomen, while his accomplice struck the victim about two times with a small baseball bat. The victim sustained life threatening wounds and his spleen was removed as a result of the attack.
Defendant pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted an enhancement for personally inflicting great bodily injury. The trial court sentenced him to seven years in state prison. After a restitution hearing, the trial court ordered defendant to pay victim restitution as follows: $87,201.98 for medical expenses, $2,404.28 for ambulance fees, and $882 for property loss. In addition, the trial court held defendant and his codefendant jointly and severally liable for $1,723.48 in restitution to the victim's mother for mileage, and $2,533.86 to the victim restitution fund. The restitution orders were subject to a 10 percent annual interest rate pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3)(G).
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
Defendant filed a motion to modify the restitution order on September 11, 2017. He asserted he had no source of money and no earnings, and he asked the trial court to stay restitution until he is placed on parole, and then order a new restitution hearing. The trial court denied the motion and defendant appeals from that denial.
II
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.
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 trial court's order denying the motion to modify the restitution order is affirmed.
/S/_________
MAURO, J. We concur: /S/_________
ROBIE, Acting P. J. /S/_________
HOCH, J.