1

Filed 5/25/22 P. v. Cifuentes CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOEL CIFUENTES,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A163104

 (Contra Costa County

 Case No. 52000602)

On November 15, 2019, Cifuentes ran a red light at an intersection and 

struck a sedan carrying three passengers: Anthony J., Daniela Z., and their 

three-month old son. Anthony and Daniela were injured and taken to the 

hospital, and their car suffered major damage. Cifuentes left the scene. He

was found in a nearby creek with red eyes and smelling of alcohol. At the 

police station, Cifuentes took two breathalyzer tests. The tests indicated he

had a 0.16 blood alcohol content and had been driving while impaired. In 

addition, he was driving without a valid license, as his had been suspended in 

May 2017 for driving with an excessive blood alcohol content.

Days after the collision, Anthony reported to the investigating detective 

that he broke his foot in the accident and suffered from severe muscle plain 

in his lower back. He needed crutches to walk. Daniela reported that she 

had been hospitalized and her injuries required a six-hour surgery to reset 

her hip and screws to secure her femur. Her left leg, right arm, and right 
2

hand were bruised, and she had a laceration on her left leg. She was in 

severe pain and on pain medication.

On January 15, 2020, the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed 

an information charging Cifuentes with driving under the influence causing 

injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a), count 1); driving with a blood alcohol 

level of 0.08% or more causing injury (Id., § 23153, subd. (b), count 2); leaving 

the scene of an accident (Id., § 20001, subd. (a), count 3); and driving when 

privilege suspended or revoked for failing blood alcohol test (Id., § 14601.5, 

subd. (a), count 4). As to counts 1 and 2, the information alleged as special 

enhancements that appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury on two 

victims (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)).

On June 15, 2020, Cifuentes, having waived his rights, pled to count 1 

and admitted the special enhancements. The trial court sentenced him to 

five years of formal probation with the condition that he serve 364 days in 

jail.

On April 7, 2021, Cifuentes submitted on victim restitution in the 

amount of $5,312 for Anthony. 

On June 23, 2021, the court held a hearing to address victim restitution 

for Daniela’s mother, Sandra V., who left her job to care for her grandson 

following the car accident. Daniela testified that, prior to the accident, she

was her son’s primary caregiver. But she was severely injured by the 

accident. On November 20, 2019—five days after the accident—she had 

surgery. Following surgery, she was transferred to a nursing home where 

she remained until March 12, 2020. For the approximately four-month 

period of hospitalization and recovery in the nursing home, Sandra cared for 

the child, an infant. 
3

Sandra testified that she had to leave work to care for her grandson. 

Due to the loss of income, she also lost her car and had to move out of her 

house and into a hotel for a brief period of 8-10 days when she could not pay 

rent. At the job she left, she had been earning $20 per hour, eight hours a 

day, Monday through Friday. She calculated that she had lost “close to

$9,000” in wages. Her rent had been $1,800 per month. The hotel she moved 

into for a brief period charged her $650 for the first four days, but she could 

not remember the exact daily rate. Asked if she had incurred any other 

expenses other than lost wages and the hotel stay due to caring for her 

grandchild, she replied, “No, just that.”

The prosecutor asked for $9,500 in restitution for lost wages and an 

additional $1,500 for hotel bills. The court noted that, based on her $20 per 

hour rate and full-time work schedule, the lost wages should be calculated 

between $12,000 to $13,000. Defense counsel requested restitution be set at 

$9,000 based on Sandra’s request, noting she was in the best position to know 

how much money she lost. Defense counsel also requested an offset to the 

hotel costs, since she had been paying rent. The court ordered restitution to 

Sandra in the amount of $9,910, which consisted of $9,500 in lost wages and 

$410 for the hotel stay. That same day, Cifuentes filed a notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief asking us to independently review 

the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine 

whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Appellate counsel has 

averred defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he 

has not filed such a brief. Having independently reviewed the record, we 

conclude there are no issues that require further briefing and affirm the 

judgment.
4

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.
5

_________________________

Petrou, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Fujisaki, Acting P.J.

_________________________

Rodríguez, J.

A163104/People v. Cifuentes