Filed 9/4/26 P. v. Alarid CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE, B346133
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. PA100144)
v.
JOSE GABRIEL SANCHEZ ALARID,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, David W. Stuart, Judge. Affirmed.
Michael Reed, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Jose Gabriel Sanchez Alarid appeals from a postjudgment
order directing him to pay $606,525 in victim restitution.
Appointed counsel filed a brief that raises no issues and asks us
to examine the record ourselves under People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We notified Sanchez Alarid that he could file
a supplemental brief within 30 days. He did not. We have
reviewed the record and find no arguable issues. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In April 2023, the People charged Sanchez Alarid in 13
counts with sexually abusing Leslie G., his partner’s daughter,
over seven years beginning when she was 11.1 On November 29,
2023, before the preliminary hearing, he pled no contest to
count 2, continuous sexual abuse of a child (Pen. Code, § 288.5,
subd. (a)), and admitted that the victim was particularly
vulnerable (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3)). The parties
stipulated to the upper term of 16 years. The remaining counts
were dismissed subject to a Harvey waiver for restitution
purposes. (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.)
The court sentenced Sanchez Alarid on December 12, 2023,
in accordance with the agreement. Leslie G. and her mother,
Angelica L., each gave a victim impact statement. The court
waived all fines and fees so that any money Sanchez Alarid
earned in prison would go to restitution, and it reserved the
restitution amount for a later hearing. At sentencing, Sanchez
Alarid waived his presence at the further hearings then set, and
counsel joined in the waiver. No appeal was taken from the
judgment.
1 We refer to the victim and her mother by first name and
last initial to protect their privacy. (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 8.90(b)(4), (10).)
2
The People filed a restitution brief in April 2024. Relying
on People v. Smith (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 415, they asked the
court for a total of $600,000 based on noneconomic loss at $50,000
per year: 10 years for Leslie G. (ages 11 to 20) plus two years for
Angelica L.
The hearing was held on March 11, 2025. Leslie G. and her
mother were present and prepared to testify. Counsel for
Sanchez Alarid declined to cross-examine them and stipulated to
their impact statements. He argued the requested sum was
excessive and the court should award less. The prosecutor
represented that Angelica L. had also incurred $6,525 in
economic loss for 87 counseling sessions at $75 each. The court
used Smith’s $50,000-per-year calculation, considered the
categories of noneconomic harm described in CACI No. 3905A,
and ordered $500,000 to Leslie G. and $106,525 to Angelica L. It
declined to impose statutory interest. The court found the
amounts large but not shocking to the conscience.
Sanchez Alarid filed a timely notice of appeal from the
restitution order. (Pen. Code, § 1237, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.308(a).)
DISCUSSION
The only order before us is the restitution order of March
11, 2025. The judgment entered in December 2023 was not
appealed and is final. Nothing about the plea, the term, the
admitted aggravating circumstance, the registration
requirement, the protective order, or the custody credits is within
our reach.
As to our review, Wende requires a court to examine the
entire record when appointed counsel files a no-issue brief on a
first appeal as of right from a criminal judgment. In People v.
3
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 226–228, our Supreme Court
held that Wende review is not required in an appeal from an
order denying postconviction relief under Penal Code
section 1172.6, because such a proceeding carries no
constitutional right to counsel. Whether Wende governs an
appeal from an order fixing restitution that was reserved at
sentencing is a different question. We need not answer it because
we have exercised our discretion to review the record
independently. (Delgadillo, at p. 232.)
Having done so, we are satisfied that Sanchez Alarid’s
counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no
arguable issue exists. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106,
110–111; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) Restitution for
noneconomic loss is authorized for felony violations of Penal Code
section 288.5. (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f)(3)(F).) The court
had before it the victims’ impact statements, counseling
documentation, and the probation report. It applied the $50,000-
per-year calculation based on evidence of the harm each victim
actually suffered. Its order was neither arbitrary nor capricious.
4
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS
ADAMS, P. J.
We concur:
HANASONO, J.
ASHWORTH, J.*
* Retired Judge of the El Dorado Superior Court, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
5