Filed 5/11/17 P. v. Guillen CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
HARIBERTO GUILLEN,
Defendant and Appellant.
H043599
(Santa Clara County
Super. Ct. No. C157980)
In 2015, defendant Hariberto Guillen1
pleaded no contest to making a false
statement for the purpose of obtaining workers’ compensation benefits (Ins. Code,
§ 1871.4, subd. (a)). On March 3, 2016, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence
and placed defendant on probation for three years with various terms and conditions.
At a restitution hearing held on May 10, 2016, the trial court ordered defendant to
pay $92,146.422
to his employer Infinity Staffing, over his objections that: (1) the
restitution sought by Infinity Staffing for medical, legal, and investigation fees related to
his workers’ compensation claim was “out of proportion” to the “one misrepresentation”
he had made during the course of his workers’ compensation claim, and (2) he should not

1
The record on appeal contains documents that also refer to defendant as
“Heriberto Guillen.”
2
The minutes of the May 10, 2016 restitution hearing and the subsequent written
order for restitution and abstract of judgment incorrectly indicate that the trial court
ordered restitution in the amount of $92,146.92.
2
have to pay restitution for the amounts Infinity Staffing paid to his workers’
compensation attorney. Defendant filed a notice of appeal from the restitution order.
On appeal, we appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed
counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende), stating the case and facts but raising no issues. We notified defendant of his
right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has
elapsed and we have received no response from defendant.
In People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano), this court concluded
that Wende review is limited to the defendant’s first appeal of right from a criminal
conviction (Serrano, supra, at p. 503). The instant appeal originates from a postconviction
proceeding and not a first appeal of right, and therefore defendant is not
entitled to Wende review. Having received no appellate argument from defendant or
appointed counsel, we must dismiss the appeal. (See Serrano, supra, at pp. 503-504.)
Appointed counsel has also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing that
defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, which we ordered
considered with the appeal. We dispose of the petition by separate order.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
___________________________________________
BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
__________________________
ELIA, ACTING P.J.
__________________________
MIHARA, J.
People v. Guillen
H043599