People v. Crosby CA1/4

Filed 10/10/24 P. v. Crosby CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A170778 v. MARK SHANNON CROSBY, (Solano County Super. Ct. No. VCR224048) Defendant and Appellant.

In January 2017, a jury found that defendant Mark Shannon Crosby fired a gun from his car into a crowd, injuring two people. Victim A.R. was shot twice in her leg. In a prior opinion, this court affirmed the following of Crosby’s convictions for which A.R. was the victim: attempted manslaughter (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664,192), assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)), and willful discharge of a firearm at a person from a vehicle (§ 26100, subd. (c)), each with various firearm enhancements (§§ 12022.5, 12022.53,

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal

Code.

subd. (d), 12022.55).2 (People v. Crosby (Dec. 30, 2019, A151328) [nonpub. opn.].) At a restitution hearing in May 2024, the prosecution introduced certified records of the California Victims’ Compensation Board (CVCB), including individual payment receipts, showing that the CVCB paid the victim a total of $63,000 over a period of four and one-half years for lost income. After defense counsel submitted the matter without objection, Crosby was ordered to pay $63,000 in victim restitution for A.R.’s lost income, payable to the CVCB. Crosby’s counsel asked this court for an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) to determine if any arguable issues exist. Counsel informed Crosby of his right to file a supplemental brief and Crosby has not done so. Insofar as a restitution order is a postjudgment order (People v. Akins (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1381, fn. 3), the Wende procedure arguably does not apply. (See People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 221 [Wende procedure applies “to the first appeal as of right and is compelled by the constitutional right to counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution”]; People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 503 [criminal defendant afforded Wende