People v. Perez CA3 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • Filed 1/26/16 P. v. Perez 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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    (Yuba)
    ----
    THE PEOPLE,                                                                             C079856
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                              (Super. Ct. No. CRF-13-716)
    v.
    LEAH MICHELLE PEREZ,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal. 3d 436
    (Wende).
    Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment.
    We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of
    the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 
    40 Cal. 4th 106
    , 110, 124.)
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    In late September and early October 2013, the Postmaster of the Camptonville
    Post Office reported to law enforcement that several post office boxes had been tampered
    with and the mail drop slot had been bent. Several checks were taken from the post
    1
    office boxes. Over the course of the next month, a number of the renters of the affected
    post office boxes reported that checks they had mailed had been altered in their amounts
    and for the benefit of defendant Leah Michelle Perez. Officers found several pieces of
    mail reported as stolen in defendant’s residence and merchandise ordered from catalogs,
    which had been obtained from the post office trash. Defendant admitted breaking into
    the post office boxes with the intent to place orders from catalogs and altering the checks
    contained therein. During the search of her home, officers also found stolen checks
    issued in a number of the victims’ names. At a later date, officers found defendant had
    posted bail and was released from custody on an unrelated matter at the time she
    committed the current crimes, after providing a false social security number and name.
    A complaint charged defendant with three counts of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459—
    counts 1-3),1 one count of vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(1)—count 4), four counts of
    forgery (§ 470, subd. (a)—counts 5-8), and one misdemeanor count of false
    representation of identity to a peace officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a)—count 9). Defendant
    received numerous notices to appear, including for a March 12, 2014 hearing. She failed
    to appear and a bench warrant issued. Defendant appeared in custody on May 20, 2014.
    Defendant was also ordered to appear in court on June 18, 2014, and again failed to
    appear. Ultimately defendant was brought to court and pleaded no contest to two counts
    of burglary with Harvey2 waivers on the remaining counts. In accordance with the plea,
    the trial court sentenced defendant to a term of three years on each count, to be served
    concurrently to each other and her term in the unrelated case (Fresno County). The trial
    court ordered the sentence served as a split sentence, with defendant serving 365 days in
    custody and the remaining two years on mandatory supervision. The trial court ordered
    1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
    2 People v. Harvey (1979) 
    25 Cal. 3d 754
    .
    2
    defendant to pay a $560 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a matching parole revocation fine
    suspended unless parole was revoked (§ 1202.45, subd. (b)), plus a 10 percent collection
    fee of $56 (§ 1202.4, subd. (l)), a burglary penalty assessment of $10 (§ 1202.5), plus $30
    in penalty assessments, an $80 court security fee (§ 1465.8), and a $60 criminal
    conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). The trial court awarded defendant 33 days
    of presentence custody credit. The trial court granted defendant’s certificate of probable
    cause. (§ 1237.5.)
    Defendant appealed. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal.
    Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and, pursuant to 
    Wende, supra
    , 
    25 Cal. 3d 436
    , requesting the court to review the record and determine whether
    there are any arguable issues on appeal. Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to
    file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More
    than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. We
    have undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, and we find no
    arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    BUTZ                  , J.
    We concur:
    BLEASE                , Acting P. J.
    DUARTE                , J.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: C079856

Filed Date: 1/26/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021