IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT Sacramento
March 14, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
THOMAS JOSHUA SHIRLEY, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
Super. Ct. No. 00F04716
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Butz ,j.
P. v. Shirley 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
This is an appeal from a postjudgment order. (Pen. Code, § 1237, subd. (b); People v. Jennings (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 42, 49 (Jennings).)
Defendant Thomas Joshua Shirley requested a reduction in victim restitution that he was ordered to pay as a result of his 2001 conviction for vehicular manslaughter. (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (c)(1).) He was ordered to pay victim restitution in the amount of $14,000 to the decedent's parents to reimburse them for grief counseling. In 2009, defendant requested a hearing to modify restitution. A hearing was held in February 2010. Defendant argued that he was entitled to a credit for $15,000 paid by his insurance company for bodily injury; $10,000 went to the decedent's estate and $5,000 went to an attorney. In April 2010, the trial court denied the request for modification, noting that the insurance payment was not specified to cover grief counseling, the particular economic loss identified in the restitution order. (See People v. Short (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 899, 905; Jennings, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 58; People v. Bernal (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 155, 165-168.)
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests 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 was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The trial court's order denying modification of victim restitution is affirmed.
We concur: ROBIE , Acting P.J. DUARTE ,J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.