People v. Bartsch CA4/1 ( 2014 )

Filed 5/8/14 P. v. Bartsch CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D064368
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD230475)
DEE ANN BARTSCH,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Edward P.
Allard III, Judge. Affirmed.
Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Peter Quon, Jr., and Anthony
Da Silva, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
After Dee Ann Bartsch waived her right to a jury trial, the court found her guilty
of theft from an elder adult (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (d)) of more than $65,000 (Pen.
Code, § 12022.6, subd. (a)(1)). The court placed Bartsch on three years' probation.
Bartsch appeals. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Joanne Rogers was born in 1934 and married Stanton Rogers in 1951. Bartsch is
their daughter.
In 2003, Mrs. Rogers suffered a brain aneurysm that resulted in memory
impairment. In 2008, Mr. Rogers underwent ankle surgery and was unable to care for his
wife. At Bartsch's suggestion, Mrs. Rogers left her husband and moved in with Bartsch,
although Mrs. Rogers did not want to separate from her husband. Mrs. Rogers trusted
Bartsch and signed the papers Bartsch gave her. Shortly after moving in with Bartsch,
Mrs. Rogers executed a power of attorney in Bartsch's favor. Bartsch handled Mrs.
Rogers's finances and they had a joint bank account.
Shortly after Mr. Rogers's surgery, Bartsch held a garage sale at which she sold
her parents' tools; hundreds of dollars worth of cookware; new washer and dryer and
refrigerator; and bed. In June 2008, Bartsch took approximately $10,200 in cash, a gun
and personal papers from Mr. Rogers's safe. Around November, Mrs. Rogers received an
inheritance from her brother consisting of $173,000 in retirement accounts. She intended
to leave the money in those accounts.
Bartsch manipulated Mrs. Rogers and isolated her from other family members. In
December 2008, Bartsch took Mrs. Rogers to see a family law attorney regarding the
2
dissolution of the Rogerses' marriage. Bartsch filed a dissolution petition after having
Mrs. Rogers sign the papers. Mrs. Rogers did not want to end the marriage and was
unaware of the dissolution until after it became final in July 2009. Meanwhile, around
January, without Mrs. Rogers's permission, Bartsch sought a restraining order against Mr.
Rogers, naming Mrs. Rogers as an additional protected party.
Over a period of several months in 2009, without Mrs. Rogers 's permission,
Bartsch withdrew nearly all of the money from Mrs. Rogers 's inherited retirement
accounts. In December, Bartsch petitioned to become Mrs. Rogers 's conservator. Mrs.
Rogers told her appointed attorney, Charles Brown, that she did not need a conservator.
Brown agreed, and he and the court's investigator recommended the petition be denied.
On December 24, Bartsch evicted Mrs. Rogers. Mrs. Rogers called her son Larry and he
took her into his home. Bartsch immediately withdrew just over $20,000 from the joint
account.
In January 2010, Brown requested an accounting from Bartsch and the court
dismissed the conservatorship petition. Mrs. Rogers retained Brown to recover her
money and Brown demanded that Bartsch return the money. Bartsch returned the money
she had withdrawn from the joint account, minus $3000. In the spring, Mr. and Mrs.
Rogers resumed living together. In September or October, Mrs. Rogers filed a civil
lawsuit against Bartsch. In late 2010, Brown received an incomprehensible accounting
from Bartsch. Bartsch never returned the money she took from her mother's retirement
accounts.
DISCUSSION
3
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and
proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to
review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 436
(Wende). Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel
mentions as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether substantial evidence supports
the conviction and (2) whether the court abused its discretion by awarding $123,943 in
restitution.
We granted Bartsch permission to file a brief on her own behalf. She has not
responded. A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the possible
issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.
Bartsch has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
McINTYRE, J.
4