People v. Stuart CA3

Filed 1/26/24 P. v. Stuart CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098635

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STKCRFE20200008121) v.

ANTHONY DEMONE STUART,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Anthony Demone Stuart has asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant filed a supplemental brief which we understand to challenge the evidence supporting a portion of the trial court’s restitution award. Having reviewed defendant’s arguments and finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the trial court’s order.

1

BACKGROUND On August 9, 2021, a jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder with two firearm enhancements and illegal possession of a firearm. The trial court determined defendant had suffered a prior strike and sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of 55 years to life plus 16 months.1 We upheld these convictions in an unpublished opinion but remanded the matter for the trial court to consider its sentencing discretion consistent with People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688. (People v. Stuart (Mar. 8, 2023, C094818).) On November 8, 2021, the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office sent defendant a letter informing him he owed $16,069.45 in victim restitution and requesting defendant execute a stipulation and waiver of the restitution hearing. Defendant requested a restitution hearing. Thereafter, on April 11, 2023, defendant’s Marsden2 motion to replace his attorney was denied when defendant indicated he wanted to represent himself. Thereafter, the trial court granted defendant’s Faretta3 motion and his appointed counsel was relieved. The contested restitution hearing took place on April 25, 2023. Defendant’s motion to recuse the judge at the outset of the hearing was denied as untimely. Thereafter, the People presented certified records documenting $9,424.35 in funeral home expenses and $6,645.10 in cemetery expenses. Defendant objected that the paperwork for the $6,645.10 expense did not reflect that payment had been made and that