People v. Ehens CA2/6

Filed 3/7/23 P. v. Ehens CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B322838
(Super. Ct. No. 19F-05786)
Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)
v.
MATTHEW LEROY EHENS,
Defendant and Appellant.
Matthew Leroy Ehens appeals a restitution order imposed
following his plea of nolo contendere to torture with personal use
of a deadly weapon, and elder abuse with the infliction of great
bodily injury and personal use of a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code,
§§ 206, 12022, subd. (b)(1), 368, subds. (b)(1) & (2), 12022.7, subd.
(c).)
Evidence presented at the preliminary examination
disclosed that on August 2, 2019, Ehens argued with his 79-year-
old foster mother. He then threw hot oil on her face and stabbed
her in the back with a kitchen knife.
On August 25, 2021, Ehens waived his trial rights, pleaded
nolo contendere to the torture and elder abuse counts, and
admitted the personal weapon use and great bodily injury
allegations. Ehens also agreed to pay specific amounts of
restitution to his foster mother, the California Victim
Compensation Board, and a property owner whose landscape he
damaged during his flight from the scene. Pursuant to a plea
agreement, the trial court sentenced Ehens to eight years to life
for the torture and personal weapon use enhancement, and
stayed sentence for the elder abuse and related enhancements.
The court also found that Ehens did not have the present
financial ability to pay certain fines and therefore did not impose
them.
We appointed counsel to represent Ehens in this appeal.
After counsel’s examination of the record, he filed an opening
brief raising no issues.
On January 12, 2023, we advised Ehens that he had 30
days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues
that he wished to raise on appeal. We have not received a
response.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that
Ehens’s attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and
that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436, 441.)
2
We affirm the judgment.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
GILBERT, P. J.
We concur:
YEGAN, J.
BALTODANO, J.
3
Jacquelyn H. Duffy, Judge
Teresa Estrada-Mullaney, Judge*
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
______________________________
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
*(Retired Judge of the San Luis Obispo Sup. Ct. assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
4