In re C.M. CA1/1

Filed 5/26/21 In re C.M. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re C.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A161562

v. (Contra Costa County C.M., Super. Ct. No. J1700756) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant C.M. appeals from a restitution order requiring him to pay $5,971.60 to the victim for medical and other expenses. His appointed counsel on appeal has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, in which his counsel raises no issues for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Counsel has informed defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief. Defendant has not done so. The juvenile court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging one count of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)), one count of assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury (id., § 245, subd. (a)(4)), and as to both counts great bodily injury enhancements (id., § 12022.7, subd. (a)). The court later dismissed 1

count 2, struck the related enhancement, adjudged minor a ward of the court, and set a restitution hearing. The victim’s mother completed a victim claim and description of loss, identifying the following: $5,896.60 for medical expenses, $2,500 for lost wages, and $75 for travel to and from court and for the victim’s clothing “ruined during the accident.” She also submitted a “BayChildren’s Physician” request for $799.08 and a Department of Health Care Services reimbursement amount of $5,896.60 “that’s become a lien.” Probation recommended victim restitution in the amount of $8,471.60.1 At the contested restitution hearing, C.M.’s counsel had no objection to the requested $75 for travel but objected to the requested lost wages, stating there was “no information about the mother’s employment, what her hourly wage is, how many hours of work she lost, where she went and what it was attributable to, and whether or not in fact her lost wages are actually cognizable.” Counsel also objected to the medical expenses. Counsel did not contend they were unreasonable amounts, but rather asserted there should be more documentation “other than the one-page letter” from the Department of Health Care Services. The court ultimately ordered $5,971.60 in restitution which included $5,896.60 for medical expenses and $75 for the victim’s clothing and for