People v. Perry CA1/5

Filed 11/4/22 P. v. Perry CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, A164782 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR353278) KENDALE PERRY, Defendant and Appellant.

Kendale Perry (appellant) appeals from an order modifying his probation to add a term ordering him to pay restitution to the California Victim Compensation Board (Board). Appellant’s counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellate counsel advised appellant of his right to file a supplementary brief to bring to this court’s attention any issue he believes deserves review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Appellant has not filed such a brief. We have reviewed the record, find no arguable issues, and affirm the order.

1

BACKGROUND In August 2020, appellant was charged with committing domestic violence upon his spouse (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)),1 with an allegation that he inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)). In May 2021, appellant pled no contest to the domestic violence count in exchange for dismissal of the enhancement and a stipulated sentence. According to the parties’ stipulation at the plea hearing, appellant assaulted his spouse on July 12, 2020. In June 2021, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on three years’ formal probation with various terms and conditions. The court ordered restitution and reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount of restitution. In July 2021, the People filed a motion to modify probation to order restitution of $4,166.06 to the Board for payments made to the victim for medical and/or dental expenses. At a September 2021 hearing, the court provided appellant with records he had subpoenaed from the Board, which had been redacted by the Board. After briefly reviewing the records, appellant’s counsel requested the court order appellant be provided with unredacted copies because with the redactions “there’s no meaningful way for me to try to figure out, you know, what these bills were potentially for and how they may have been related to the underlying charge.” The prosecutor argued it was sufficient that the records showed they were medical bills incurred by the victim on the date of the offense. The court denied appellant’s request for unredacted records and set the matter for a restitution hearing, stating appellant “can calendar