Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID DANIEL MCKINNEY, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
----------
A felony complaint alleged appellant David McKinney burglarized the home of Yuen Yu Bush on May 15, 2008. McKinney was charged with one count of first degree residential burglary. (Pen.Code, § 459.) McKinney pleaded guilty to the charged count, and was sentenced to the low term of two years. McKinney waived his right to be present at a restitution hearing scheduled at the prosecutor's request.
At the restitution hearing, Bush testified that after reimbursement from her insurance company, her total loss sustained from the burglary for jewelry and cash not recovered was $16,670. Bush had receipts for $520 of the stolen property; the rest was an estimate. The trial court ordered McKinney to pay Bush restitution of $16,670 from his prison earnings. Bush appealed, challenging the amount of the restitution order.
We appointed counsel to represent McKinney on appeal. After examination of the record, McKinney's counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues, and asking this court to independently review the record. On February 9, 2010, we advised McKinney he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. To date, we have received no response.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that McKinney's counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities, and no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
We concur:
ROTHSCHILD, Acting P.J. CHANEY, J.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: B215683
Decided: June 10, 2010
Court: Court of Appeal, Second District, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)