 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Panduro1/19/2005
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Manuel Herrera Panduro appeals from a restitution order following his no contest plea to four counts of assault with a deadly weapon, by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)), one count of leaving the scene of an accident (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a)), and one count of driving under the influence causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to prison for a total of eight years and four months; and following a hearing, for which appellant waived his right to be present but was represented by counsel, he was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $46,441.07.
After review of the record, appellant's court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On October 19, 2004, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. On November 1, 2004, appellant filed a supplemental brief asserting that he disagreed with the amount of restitution ordered and contended defense counsel did not do all that he could have done. Appellant also claimed that the victim, Mr. Gularte, did not suffer a broken nose and disputed whether Mr. Gularte would have to reimburse his insurance company. Additionally, appellant requests that Mr. Gularte, his attorney and Mercury Insurance stop trying to collect money from appellant's parents.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist. According to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(2), determination of the amount of restitution is not affected by the indemnification or subrogation rights of any third party. While appellant asks us to disbelieve the testimony of victim Gularte, we cannot reject the testimony of a witness that the trier of fact chooses to believe as his testimony is not inherently incredible. (See In re Daniel G. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 824, 830.) Further, appellant has failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel. (People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 425.) Additionally, allegations of improper collection methods used against appellant's parents are not the subject of this appeal.
Appellant has, by virtue of counsel's compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the order entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P.J.
CURRY, J.
|