People v. Goodner CA1/1

Filed 1/13/26 P. v. Goodner CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A173940 v. STEVEN GOODNER, (San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. No. CRI23015442) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Steven Goodner appeals from an order of direct victim restitution. His counsel filed a brief stating there are no arguable issues and asking us to perform an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Goodner was provided with an opportunity to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. We conclude Goodner is not entitled to Wende review in this appeal from a postjudgment order and dismiss the appeal as abandoned. (See People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 221–222, 227, 232.) I. BACKGROUND A jury convicted Goodner of two felony counts of vandalism under Penal Code section 594, subdivision (b)(1), and two misdemeanor counts of malicious mischief to a vehicle under Vehicle Code section 10853. In September 2024, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed

him on probation for two years.1 That December, after a hearing, the court ordered Goodner to pay $13,287.69 in restitution to a victim whose vehicle was damaged. In September 2025, we granted Goodner’s motion for constructive filing of a notice of appeal from the restitution order, initiating this appeal. II. DISCUSSION A restitution order is a postjudgment order, meaning we are not required to perform an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues under People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. (People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 221–222, 227, 231.) Although we have discretion to perform a Wende review even if it is not required, we decline to exercise that discretion here. (See Delgadillo, at pp. 229, 232.) Thus, we dismiss the appeal as abandoned. (See id. at p. 232.) III. DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed.

1 Goodner’s appeal from the judgment is pending in this division and