Full Opinion

Filed 10/27/26 P. v. Bem CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) THE PEOPLE, C104319 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MAN-CR-FE- v. 2023-0000961) VICTORIA BEM, Defendant and Appellant. Appointed counsel for defendant Victoria Bem asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding none, we will affirm. BACKGROUND In January 2023, defendant contacted law enforcement and told them she shot and killed her boyfriend in self-defense after he threatened to kill defendant and her family. In November 2023, the People charged defendant with murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)).1 The People also alleged intentional discharge of a firearm resulting in great bodily injury or death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) and numerous aggravating factors. 1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 1 In October 2024, the People amended the information to conform to the parties’ negotiated plea agreement. Defendant pled no contest to voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)), admitted to using a firearm in the commission of a felony (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)), and infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7). In exchange for defendant’s plea, the People agreed she would serve a total term of nine years in state prison. The People also moved to “dismiss, discharge the aggravating factors,” and the court granted their motion. In December 2024, defendant was sentenced in accordance with the terms of her plea agreement. At sentencing, the trial court ordered defendant to pay direct victim restitution totaling $7,169.75 and set a hearing for defendant to contest that amount. The restitution hearing was held on July 28, 2025. The People presented evidence that the victim’s burial expenses totaled $5,918.25. Defendant agreed to pay those expenses. The People also presented evidence that the victim’s mother incurred $1,260 in fees for counseling services, resulting from the death of her son. Defendant objected to those fees; she claimed the People failed to establish a nexus between the mother’s counseling and the victim’s death. The trial court was not persuaded by defendant’s argument and ordered defendant to pay the $1,260 in counseling fees. The court reserved jurisdiction over any future restitution. At that same hearing, the trial court granted defendant’s motion to return property held by the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office. Defendant appeals from the July 28, 2025, order. DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. 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 the 2 opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have 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 July 28, 2025, order is affirmed. \s\ KRAUSE, J. We concur: \s\ EARL, P. J. \s\ BOULWARE EURIE, J. 3