Background
Jose Juan Solis was charged by information filed on May 21, 2024, with carjacking, grand theft of personal property, and second degree burglary, along with a firearm enhancement, an on-bail enhancement, and six aggravating circumstances. On September 26, 2024, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the information was amended to add a count of attempted robbery, to which Solis pleaded no contest. The remaining charges were dismissed with a Harvey waiver.
The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, placed Solis on two years of probation with 364 days in county jail, and imposed 10-year protective orders for the victims. Because Solis had 1,000 days of presentence custody credit, he was immediately released. The court waived all fees and fines, stayed any restitution fine, and reserved the issue of victim restitution. At a restitution hearing on March 14, 2025, the court ordered restitution in the amount of $10,400. Solis filed a timely notice of appeal on April 21, 2025, although the notice erroneously stated the appeal was from an order made March 21, 2025; the attached order was dated March 14, 2025.
The Court’s Holding
Solis's appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issues and requesting independent review of the record. Counsel attested that he advised Solis of his right to file a supplemental brief, but Solis did not do so. The Court of Appeal examined the entire record in accordance with Wende and agreed with counsel that there were no arguable issues requiring further briefing.
At the restitution hearing, the robbery victim testified that in November 2017 she was employed as an in-home caregiver working both daytime and evening hours. The attempted robbery occurred outside her residence, and due to fear resulting from the crime, she stopped working her evening hours but continued working during the daytime. She requested restitution for the amount of her evening shift wages from the date of the offense to her patient's date of death in 2022. The court calculated restitution as $10,400 based on a claim for five hours of lost income per week at $8 per hour.
Defense counsel argued that awarding restitution for the full amount of lost wages was excessive because the victim did not seek therapy to address her fear. The trial court found the claim reasonable, viewing the victim's fear as a foreseeable result of a nighttime robbery and observing that the cost of therapy might be more than the amount requested. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, citing People v. Baker (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 463, 470, for the principle that a court has broad discretion in setting the amount of restitution and may use any rational method reasonably calculated to make the victim whole. The appellate court also noted that counsel did not object to the amount the court calculated.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court has broad discretion in setting the amount of victim restitution and may use any rational method reasonably calculated to make the victim whole.
- Restitution for lost wages caused by a victim's fear after a nighttime robbery can be a foreseeable and reasonable award even if the victim did not seek therapy.
- When appointed appellate counsel files a Wende brief raising no issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable issues.
- The appellate court affirmed the judgment, not merely the restitution order, after finding no arguable issues in the record.
- Failure to object to the restitution amount at the hearing may undermine a challenge to the calculation on appeal.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision illustrates the routine application of the Wende procedure in California criminal appeals, where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues and the appellate court conducts an independent review of the record. The court's affirmance of the judgment includes its conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in calculating victim restitution, including an award for lost wages stemming from a victim's fear following a violent crime.
The case also demonstrates that a negotiated plea resulting in probation can lead to a later appeal challenging a restitution order, and that the absence of a contemporaneous objection to the restitution amount can be noted by the reviewing court.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket