Filed 10/7/26 P. v. Solis CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
A174624
v.
JOSE JUAN SOLIS, (Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. 04-23-00169)
Defendant and Appellant.
Jose Juan Solis was convicted on a plea of no contest to one count of
attempted robbery and placed on probation. The court reserved the issue of
victim restitution and ordered restitution after a hearing several months
later. Solis appealed from that restitution order. His appointed appellate
counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende) in which he raises no issue and asks this court for an independent
review of the record. Counsel attests that he advised Solis of his right to file
a supplemental brief, but Solis has not done so.
Having examined the entire record in accordance with Wende, we agree
with counsel that there are no arguable issues requiring further briefing and
affirm.
BACKGROUND
Solis was charged by information filed on May 21, 2024, with
carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)) (count 1), grand theft of personal
1
property (id., § 487, subd. (a)) (count 2), and second degree burglary (id.,
§ 459) (count 3). The information alleged an enhancement for use of a
firearm in the commission of count 1 (id., § 12022.53, subd. (b)); an on-bail
enhancement (id., § 12022.1) for all counts; and six aggravating
circumstances (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421).
On September 26, 2024, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the
information was amended to charge a count of attempted robbery (Pen. Code,
§ 664/211) (count 4), Solis pleaded no contest to that count, and the
remaining charges were dismissed with a Harvey1 waiver. In accordance
with the stipulated disposition, the court suspended imposition of sentence,
placed Solis on two years’ probation with 364 days in county jail and imposed
10-year protective orders for the victims of the attempted robbery and the
carjacking. Solis had 1,000 days of presentence custody credit and therefore
was immediately released. The court waived all fees and fines, stayed any
restitution fine and reserved the issue of victim restitution. Subsequently, at
a restitution hearing on March 14, 2025, the court ordered restitution in the
amount of $10,400.
Solis filed a timely notice of appeal on April 21, 2025.2
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Wende, we are required “to conduct a review of the entire
record whenever appointed counsel submits a brief which raises no specific
1 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
2 The notice of appeal erroneously states the appeal is from the order
made March 21, 2025. As the date of the attached order is March 14, 2025,
and no further order appears in the record, it is clear the appeal is from the
March 14 order.
2
issues or describes the appeal as frivolous.” (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at
p. 441; Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.)
At the restitution hearing, the robbery victim testified that in
November 2017 she was employed as an in-home caregiver, working both
daytime and evening hours. The attempted robbery occurred outside her
residence. Due to fear resulting from the crime, she stopped working her
evening hours but continued working during the daytime. She requested
restitution for the amount of her evening shift wages from the date of the
offense to her patient’s date of death in 2022. The court calculated
restitution as $10,400 based on a claim for five hours of lost income per week
at $8 per hour.
Defense counsel argued that awarding restitution for the full amount of
lost wages was excessive because the victim did not seek therapy to address
her fear. The court found the claim reasonable, viewing victim’s fear as a
foreseeable result of a nighttime robbery and observing the cost of therapy
might be more than the amount requested. The court did not abuse its
discretion. (See People v. Baker (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 463, 470 [court has
broad discretion in setting amount of restitution and may use any rational
method reasonably calculated to make victim whole].) Counsel did not object
to the amount the court calculated.
Our review of the record reveals no arguable issues requiring further
briefing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
3
STEWART, P. J.
We concur.
RICHMAN, J.
SWEET, J.*
People v. Solis (A174624)
* Judge of the Marin Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant
to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
4