People v. Pecaro CA1/1

Filed 10/4/16 P. v. Pecaro CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A148394 v. KENNETH JAMES PECARO, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR-649282) Defendant and Appellant.

In this case, appellant seeks review of his no contest plea. His attorney has submitted the matter pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We are asked to review the record here and determine whether any appellate issues are present. Counsel has advised appellant she is filing a brief pursuant to Wende and advised him he may personally file a supplemental brief within 30 days to raise any issues he wants this court to consider. Appellant has not filed any supplemental brief in this regard. We have reviewed the record and conclude the judgment should be affirmed. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant was charged with one count of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen.Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(1)), with an additional allegation of having suffered a strike prior (§§ 1170.12, subds. (b), (c), 667, subds. (d), (e)). He submitted a written waiver of rights form and entered his no contest plea to the charge and the strike allegation as part

1 Unless otherwise stated, all statutory references herein are to the Penal Code

of a negotiated disposition calling for six years in state prison. On February 9, 2016, the trial court imposed the six-year sentence, along with fines and fees. The trial court did not approve the request by appellant for a certificate of probable cause. The court also entered an order for appellant to pay to the Victim Compensation Board and Government Claims Board (Board) a restitution sum of $22,230.08. The court set the issue of review of this sum for a restitution hearing. The hearing on restitution was based on documents submitted by the prosecution itemizing the various expenses incurred by the victim of the assault. These were certified records from the Board. The Board reduced the medical claims documenting the victim’s injuries from $35,467.43 to $22,230.08, and approved the latter amount. This is the restitution amount ordered by the trial court. At the hearing, appellant submitted no documents or evidence challenging the details of the prosecution’s restitution sum. Counsel did argue the documentation was not sufficient to permit the court to conclude the extent of the dental care was the result of the underlying criminal incident. The court stated it would conclude the Board had made that determination, based on the review of the document and the sum approved by the Board. It asked counsel to identify any entries for care that appellant believed were not related to the assault. Counsel was not able to indicate any particular amounts. Based on this concession, the court determined the amount of restitution ordered would remain, but reserved its jurisdiction to visit the issue again if a future challenge was presented. A timely notice of appeal was filed on May 13, 2016. STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts of the case are detailed in the probation report and the preliminary transcript. They indicate on December 15, 2013, victim Shawn Mahoney was seated in the back seat of a vehicle driven by a third person. Appellant was in the front passenger seat and was very intoxicated. Appellant and the driver were arguing about appellant’s work gathering signatures for a petition at the Sonoma County fairgrounds that day.