legal newsarticles
jobs
projectsbriefs
 
Home Link Directory Forum Gallery Cases Law BlogsOpportunities
 
P. v. Tygenhof
P. v. Tygenhof
11/30/13





P




 

 

 

P. v.
Tygenhof


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 10/18/13  P. v. Tygenhof 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NOT TO
BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.

 

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(El Dorado)

----

 

 
>






THE PEOPLE,

 

                        Plaintiff
and Respondent,

 

            v.

 

RYAN RAYMOND TYGENHOF,

 

                        Defendant
and Appellant.

 


 

 

C072039

 

(Super. Ct. No. P09CRF0256)

 

 


            Appointed counsel for defendant Ryan
Raymond Tygenhof asked this court to review the record to determine whether
there are any arguable issues on
appeal.  (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).)  Finding no arguable
error, we affirm the judgment.

            Defendant pled no contest to href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">child endangerment.  (Pen. Code,href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] § 273a, subd.
(a).)  A count of lewd and lascivious
acts with a child (§ 288, subd. (a)) and an allegation of substantial
sexual conduct (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)) were dismissed in the interest
of justice.  Imposition of sentence was
suspended and defendant was granted probation for four years.  He was ordered to pay various fines and fees
and victim restitution. 

            At the restitution hearing, the
mother submitted a claim for mental
health
counseling expenses, family law attorney fees, relocation expenses,
and lost wages.  Due to the emotional
stress caused by defendant’s behavior with the child victim, the child’s mother
missed hundreds of hours of work between March 2008 and December 2010.  The mother missed 471.5 hours of work in
2008, at $17.78 per hour; 987 hours of work in 2009, at $18.67 per hour; and 11
months of work in 2010, at $1,355 every two weeks.  For the 11 months of 2010, the mother
received $948 in state disability payments every two weeks, resulting in a net
loss of $814 per month. 

            Following the href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">restitution hearing, the trial court
ordered defendant to pay victim restitution in the amount of $37,004.56 plus a
10-percent collection fee. 

            Appointed 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.  (Wende,
supra,
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 elapsed, and we 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.

DISPOSITION

            The judgment is affirmed.

 

 

                                                                                             HOCH             , J.

 

 

We concur:

 

 

                HULL             , Acting P. J.

 

 

                BUTZ             , J.





id=ftn1>

href="#_ftnref1"
name="_ftn1" title="">[1]          Undesignated statutory references are
to the Penal Code.




Details Discussion (0) Print Rate Report


0/5 based on 0 votes. The median rating is 0.

Views: 0 views. Averaging 0 views per day.

Previous Article | Next Article

    Home | Contacts | Submit New Article | Site Leaders | Search
    © 2005 Fearnotlaw.com