1 Filed 4/9/14 P. v. White CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOURTH APPELL ATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. CRAIG KEYON WHITE, Defendant and Appellant. E059686 (Super.Ct.No . RIF10004243)
OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Michael B. Donner, Judge. Affirmed. Suzanne G. Wrubel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 INTRODUCTION On October 14, 2011, a ju ry found defendant guilty of four counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), two counts of attempte d robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 211), and one count of first degree burglary (Pen. C ode, § 459), all stemming from a single home invasion robbery involving multiple victims. After defendant admitted the truth of the allegations that he had two strike priors with in the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code §§ 667, subds. (c), (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)), and that he had served a prior term in prison (Pen. Code, § 667.5, s ubd. (b)), the trial court imposed the mandatory sentence under the three strikes law of four c onsecutive terms of 25 years to life in state in prison. We affirmed the judgme nt on appeal in case No. E055529. On April 9, 2012, the probation department filed a report with the court in which it recommended defendant be required to pay th e four victims restitution in the amounts the victims had each requested. On November 29 , 2012, defendant agreed, and the parties stipulated to the amount of re stitution defendant woul d pay to three of the four victims. However, defendant did not agree to the amou nt requested by Adrian Ibarra because Ibarra had not provided receipts to support his claimed losses. The trial court ordered the probation department to prepare a supple mental report on the amount of restitution defendant should be orde red to pay to Ibarra. Defendant requested a hear ing on June 4, 2013, on the amount of restitution he should be required to pay Ibarra. The prob ation department filed a supplemental report on July 18, 2013, recommending restitution to Ibarra in the original amount he had3 requested, and acknowledging proba tion had been unable to contact him and, therefore, had not obtained documentation to su pport the amount of his claim. At the hearing, held on Ju ly 26, 2013, the trial court ordered defendant to pay $1,104.99 in restitution to Ibarra. Defendant filed a timely appeal. FACTS Ibarra submitted a statement of loss form to the probation department seeking victim restitution of $2,155 comprised of $1 ,200 for a 42-inch LG LCD television; $5 for replacement of a Phat Farm wallet; $500 for re placement of his green card; $200 for lost cash; and $250 for replacement of an iPhone. Ibarra did not provide any receipts to support his restitution claim nor did he sign the claim form. At the hearing on Ibarra’s restitution claim, defendant ’s attorney objected to Ibarra’s restitution claim, first on the ground that Ibarra had not signed the statement of loss form, an oversight counsel claimed made it impossibl e to verify that Ibarra had submitted the claim. Defense counsel also obje cted, in the absence of receipts, that there was no evidence to establish the value of the items for which Ibarra sought restitution. The prosecutor argued the evid ence that probation had mailed the form to Ibarra and that it was mailed back to probation was sufficient to sh ow Ibarra was the person who submitted the claim, the items for which Iba rra requested restitution corresponded with the items he testified at trial had been stol en from him during the robbery, and the values attributed those items seemed reasonable.4 The trial court agreed with the prosecut or. The trial court noted that although Ibarra had not provided receipt s, another victim, Estevez, had submitted a receipt in the amount of $649.99 to establis h the value of the 42-inch te levision defendant had stolen from him. The trial court relied on Estevez’ s receipt to value Ib arra’s 42-inch LCD television at $649.99, rather than $1,200, as Ibarra had requested. The trial court struck Ibarra’s request for $500 to replace his stolen green card because there was no evidence to support that request. The trial court th en awarded Ibarra a total of $1,104.99 in
restitution for the stolen television and items other than the green card. DISCUSSION At defendant’s request, this court appointe d counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Ca l.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a stat ement of the case, a summary of the facts, and two potential arguable issues, both of which are dire cted at the su fficiency of the evidence to support Ibarra’s restitution claim. Counsel as ks this court to conduct an independent review of the record. We offered defendant an oppo rtunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal. 4th 106, we have reviewed the record for poten tial error and find no arguable issues.5 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER J. We concur:

HOLLENHORST Acting P. J.

MILLER J.