People v. Ramirez CA4/3

facts or applicable law; and (3) the defendant has offered no reasonable justification for the delay.” There are, of course, exceptions to this rule, but they are very limited, and none has ever been applied to a case where defendant has already had two appeals. Appellant cannot, therefore, raise any issues about his trial or sentencing that have already been raised, or that could have been raised in the earlier appeals. This means appellant is limited to issues pertaining to what is left here: the restitution order. And since we have already ruled on that and instructed the court what to do, and it has done it, there is really nothing left to argue. We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the procedural facts of the case (the facts of the crimes themselves are irrelevant because the only available issue is the restitution hearing). Counsel did not argue against his client, but advised us there were no issues to argue on his behalf. Appellant was invited to express his own objections to the proceedings against him, but did not. Under the law, this put the onus on us to review the record and see if we could find any issues…