People v. Guillen CA4/3

Filed 6/12/14 P. v. Guillen CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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). The opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G049164

v. (Super. Ct. No. 09CF0684)

MIGUEL LOPEZ GUILLEN, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, M. Marc Kelly. Affirmed. Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. * * *

Miguel Lopez Guillen appeals from a postjudgment order requiring him to pay victim restitution (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f)) following his conviction of murder and attempted murder. Guillen’s appointed counsel filed a brief under the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel summarized the facts of the case, the procedural history, and possible legal issues with citations to the record and appropriate authority, but raised no specific issues, and asked this court to review the record to determine whether there were any arguable issues. Counsel did not argue against his client or assert the appeal was frivolous. Counsel also submitted a

declaration stating he had advised Guillen of the nature of the brief, stated he would send Guillen a copy of the brief and appellate record, and had informed him he could file a brief on his own behalf. Counsel also stated he was not requesting to withdraw, but he

would advise Guillen he could move to have counsel relieved. Finally, counsel informed us the principal issue at the restitution hearing was whether the rules of evidence applied. (See People v. Prosser (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 682, 692 [the rules of evidence do not apply at a restitution hearing given that it is part of the sentencing process]; accord, People v. Baumann (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 67, 81.) We gave Guillen 30 days to file a supplemental brief. He did not avail himself of the opportunity. For the reasons