In re Mark L. CA4/1

Filed 2/3/22 In re Mark L. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re Mark L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D079337 THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JCM243488)

v.

MARK L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Matthew C. Braner, Judge. Affirmed. Britton Donaldson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A petition was filed in the juvenile court under Welfare and

Institutions Code1 section 602 alleging Mark L., a juvenile (the Minor), had committed criminal offenses. The Minor admitted one count of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and admitted he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (Pen. Code, § 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). The victim had been hospitalized for significant injuries. Accordingly, the court set a restitution hearing date. The court held a contested restitution hearing. The victim’s mother and father testified regarding their economic losses in the form of lost wages, lost vacation time, and hospital and medical costs. The vast bulk of the medical and hospital costs were paid by insurance. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court made the following awards of restitution to the victim’s mother: $807.60 for lost wages; $950 for medical copayments; and $197,797.11 for hospital and medical costs. The court found the Minor and his mother were jointly and severally liable for the restitution, with the mother’s responsibility capped at $45,000 per section 730.7. The Minor filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered the Minor the