Opinion
A167866
10-02-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HECTOR MOLINA, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 20CR007664
Markman, J.
Defendant Hector Molina appeals from a postjudgment order reserving jurisdiction concerning victim restitution. His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no legal issues and requesting that this court exercise its discretion to conduct an independent review of the record under People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano). Counsel has informed Molina of his right to file a supplemental brief with this court raising any issues he wishes to call to the court's attention. Molina has not filed a supplemental brief.
BACKGROUND
In December 2020, Molina pleaded no contest to felony arson (Pen. Code, § 452, subd. (b)). Molina was placed on three years' felony probation and restitution was reversed. According to the probation report, Molina had hit the front door of a home with a hatchet, thrown a rock through the front window, forced open the garage door, and burned a cardboard box of cooking equipment. Molina also admitted to a probation violation in a 2019 case. The court found that Molina violated his probation and sentenced him to two years in prison with 650 days of credit.
In 2021 and 2022, the People filed multiple petitions to revoke Molina's felony probation. In May 2022, Molina admitted all probation violations dating back to September 7, 2021. The trial court imposed the stayed three-year prison term and found Molina was entitled to 1,096 days of credit. The court determined that his sentence had been served, placed Molina on parole, and reserved jurisdiction concerning victim restitution.
On April 25, 2023, the trial court conducted a restitution hearing. Counsel for Molina appeared on his behalf. The court again reserved jurisdiction concerning restitution and otherwise dropped the matter. Molina filed a timely notice of appeal of the April 25, 2023 restitution order.
DISCUSSION
Independent judicial review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is required only as to "a defendant's first appeal as of right." (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119-120 (Kelly).) The procedure to resolve all future criminal appeals arising from proceedings other than the first appeal of right is outlined in Serrano: where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, counsel will inform the court and file a brief setting forth the applicable facts and law. (Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 503.) The defendant must be informed of his or her right to file a supplemental brief. (Ibid.) The court may then "either retain the appeal or dismiss it on our own motion." (Ibid.)
We decline counsel's request to exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of the entire record under Serrano. Molina has received the benefit of the procedure authorized by Serrano. His counsel informed this court that he found no arguable issues to be pursued on appeal, filed a briefing setting out the applicable facts and law, advised Molina that a Serrano brief would be filed in this case, and informed Molina of his right to file a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the record concerning Molina's 2020 plea to confirm that the trial court ensured the plea was knowing and voluntary. We have reviewed the minute order from the April 25, 2023 restitution hearing to confirm that the trial court reserved restitution and otherwise dropped the matter. We see nothing arguable about that order. (See Pen. Code, § 1202.46 ["when the economic losses of a victim cannot be ascertained at the time of sentencing pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 1202.4, the court shall retain jurisdiction over a person subject to a restitution order for purposes of imposing or modifying restitution until such time as the losses may be determined"].)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: STEWART, P.J., RICHMAN, J.
Judge of the Alameda Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.