Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jessica Silvers, Judge. Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA059909.
Linda Acaldo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, from Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
JACKSON, J.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Arpey Valian entered a negotiated plea of no contest to residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). Imposition of sentence was suspended, and defendant was placed on five years formal probation, on condition she serve 365 days in county jail. The court ordered her to pay a $20 security fee, a $200 restitution fine and restitution to her victim (Carson Arigo). A parole revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45. Defendant was awarded 104 days of presentence credit (70 actual days and 34 days of conduct credit).
The underlying facts of the burglary are not relevant to this appeal.
Following a restitution hearing, defendant was ordered to pay $5,300 to the victim pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f).
RESTITUTION HEARING
At the restitution hearing, defendant was represented by counsel. Over defense
objection, the police report and the probation officer’s report were introduced in which the victim itemized the property stolen and its value. The list was read into the record: Miscellaneous articles of clothing ($1,300), a Gateway laptop computer ($750), an Acer laptop computer ($500), diamond earrings ($600), Coach luggage shoulder bag ($700), a blue and yellow bag ($200), Samsonite luggage ($150) and a Burberry handbag ($500). Defense counsel argued restitution should not be ordered based on the victim’s statement of her losses to police and suggested the victim was inflating the value of the stolen items. However, defendant presented no evidence to rebut the victim’s evidence.
DISCUSSION
Defendant filed a timely appeal from the restitution order, and we appointed counsel to represent her on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On May 14, 2009, we advised defendant she had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues she wished us to consider. We have received no response to date.
Although defendant’s conviction is based on her no contest plea, her plea agreement did not specify the amount of victim restitution. Accordingly, no certificate of probable cause is needed to appeal from the court’s post-plea determination of that amount. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4)(B) [defendant need not obtain certificate of probable cause under Pen. Code, § 1237.5 if appeal is based on “[g]rounds that arose after entry of the plea and do not affect the plea’s validity”]; see People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 74 [certificate of probable cause not required if defendant asserts “issues regarding proceedings held subsequent to the plea for the purposes of determining the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed”]; see also People v. Kunitz (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 652, 657-658.)
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied defendant’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) In any event, we affirm the order as well within the trial court’s discretion. (See In re Johnny M. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1132 [the “standard of review of a restitution order is abuse of discretion”]; People v. Baker (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 463, 470 [“[T]he court’s discretion in setting the amount of restitution is broad, and it may use any rational method of fixing the amount of restitution as long as it is reasonably calculated to make the victim whole.”].)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: PERLUSS, P. J., WOODS, J.