California Court of Appeal Apr 25, 2025 No. E083789Unpublished
Filed 4/25/25 P. v. Williams CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, No. E083789
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB23002948)
CARL LEE WILLIAMS, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Alexander R.
Martinez, Judge. Dismissed.
Jan B. Norman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
I.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Carl Lee Williams appeals the trial court’s postjudgment
victim restitution order. Appointed counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People
v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), requesting this court to conduct an
independent review of the record. In addition, defendant has had an opportunity to file a
supplemental brief with this court and has not done so. Because defendant’s counsel
filed a brief raising no issues and defendant was notified that failure to timely file a
supplemental brief may result in the dismissal of the appeal as abandoned and was given
an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief but failed to do so, we dismiss the
appeal as abandoned. (Id. at pp. 231-232.)
II.
BACKGROUND
On January 8, 2024, defendant pled guilty to one count of felony evading a peace
officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); count 1); two counts of felony vandalism over
$400 in damages (Pen. Code, § 594; counts 2 & 3); and two counts of misdemeanor hit
and run resulting in property damage (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a); counts 4 & 5). In
return, the trial court indicated a sentence of 16 months.
On February 7, 2024, the probation officer filed a restitution memo. Counts 4 and
5, misdemeanor hit and run resulting in property damage, involved defendant striking a
fence on private property. The restitution memo included an estimate of $6,350.00 from
2
a contractor to repair the fence that defendant struck. The probation officer recommended
that defendant be ordered to pay the full amount of $6,350.00 in victim restitution.
On February 7, 2024, the trial court sentenced defendant to the low term of
16 months on counts 2 and 3, a concurrent term on count 3, and a concurrent term of
180 days on counts 1 and 4.1 The trial court ordered defendant to pay a $300.00
restitution fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4; and a $70 per count in court
operations/conviction fee pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8 and Government Code
section 70373. Victim restitution was reserved for a future hearing.
A restitution hearing was conducted on April 19, 2024. The People submitted on
the probation officer’s restitution memo and recommendation. Defense counsel objected
that the memo lacked foundation and consisted of several layers of hearsay. Counsel
further objected that no witness had appeared to testify, that the supporting document was
an estimate, and that no one had submitted a declaration under penalty of perjury to
support the requested amount of $6,350.00. The trial court reviewed the estimated
damages, found the costs to be reasonable, and awarded the victim $6,350.00 in victim
restitution. Defendant timely appealed, from the order setting the restitution amount.
1 Count 1 was amended from a felony to a misdemeanor. Count 5, the second charge of hit and run resulting in property damage, was dismissed by the trial court.
3
III.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under the
authority of Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216, setting forth a statement of facts, a
statement of the case, and identifying three potentially arguable issues: whether the trial
court abused its discretion (1) by not requiring testimony from the victim, (2) when it
based its victim restitution award on multiple hearsay, and (3) when it based the victim
restitution award on an estimate that lacked foundation, and erred in calculating lost
wages and moving expenses at the restitution hearing. Counsel requests that we exercise
our discretion and independently examine the appellate record for any arguable issues.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. We
noted that if he did not do so, we could dismiss the appeal. Nevertheless, defendant has
not filed one. Under these circumstances, we have no obligation to independently review
the record for error. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th. at pp. 224-231.) We, however, have
discretion to conduct an independent review even when it is not required. (Id. at p. 232.)
This case does not call for us to exercise our discretion to independently examine the
record for arguable issues, and we decline to exercise our discretion to independently
examine the record. Rather, we dismiss the appeal. (Id. at pp. 231-232.)
4
IV.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS CODRINGTON J. We concur:
MILLER Acting P. J.
MENETREZ J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court dismissed the appeal as abandoned because the defendant failed to file a supplemental brief after appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues under People v. Delgadillo.
Issues
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by not requiring victim testimony at the restitution hearing.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by basing the restitution award on hearsay.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by basing the restitution award on an estimate lacking foundation.
Disposition. Dismissed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“This case does not call for us to exercise our discretion to independently examine the record for arguable issues, and we decline to exercise our discretion to independently examine the record. Rather, we dismiss the appeal.”