California Court of Appeal Nov 25, 2024 No. E083112Unpublished
Filed 11/25/24 P. v. Rosado CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E083112
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB22002693)
MATILDE ROSADO, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Rafael A. Arreola,
Judge. (Retired Judge of the San Diego Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant
to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Thien Huong Tran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
A jury found defendant and appellant Matilde Rosado guilty of grand theft of lost
property. (Pen. Code1, § 485.) Defendant appeals. We affirm.
The victim was at the Yaamava Casino and went to the buffet. The employee at
the counter asked to see her identification, so she took her California identification out of
her wallet to show the employee. The victim then proceeded to the buffet seating and left
her wallet behind.
After finishing her meal, the victim realized she did not have her wallet, so she
reported it to casino employees. She had approximately $2,100 in cash in her wallet.
Casino surveillance personnel located surveillance video of the victim when she left her
wallet on the counter. The video showed defendant approaching the counter, shortly after
the victim left. The video showed that defendant noticed the wallet on the counter, then
placed the victim’s wallet in her pants pocket.
After reviewing the surveillance video, a security officer located defendant in the
casino and told her she was a suspect in a wallet theft. Defendant denied having the
wallet, but admitted having it after the officer told her she was caught on camera taking
it. Defendant did not think she had done anything wrong, since she did not steal the
wallet, but simply found it. The officer asked where the wallet was, and defendant said
she had put it inside the storage compartment of her mother’s walker. The officer located
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.
2
defendant’s mother in the casino, took possession of the wallet, and returned it to the
victim. The victim looked inside and noticed her money was missing from the wallet. A
sheriff subsequently placed defendant under arrest for grand theft. Approximately $1,550
in cash was found on her person.
Defendant was charged by information with grand theft of lost property exceeding
$950. (§ 485) A jury found defendant guilty as charged.
Defendant subsequently filed a petition to disclose each juror’s name and contact
information, based on alleged juror misconduct. She also filed a motion for new trial,
based on the same alleged juror misconduct. In the alternative, defendant asked the court
to reduce her conviction to a misdemeanor.
The trial court denied the petition to disclose juror information, finding
insufficient evidence of juror misconduct. The court denied the motion for new trial,
noting there was overwhelming evidence that defendant took the victim’s money,
including testimony and video evidence. It also denied the request to reduce the
conviction to a misdemeanor without prejudice, stating that it would consider reducing
the conviction in the future if defendant paid $2,100 in restitution. The court placed
defendant on felony probation for two years and ordered her to pay the restitution. It also
awarded her four days of custody credit, ordered her to report to work release, and
waived all remaining fees and fines, finding her indigent.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
3
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed, and, upon her request, this court appointed counsel to
represent her. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the
case and listing the following potential arguable issues: (1) whether the court abused its
discretion in denying defendant’s petition to disclose juror contact information, based on
alleged juror misconduct; (2) whether the court properly denied the motion for new trial;
and (3) whether there was sufficient evidence that the theft was in an amount exceeding
$950. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
she has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS FIELDS J. We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
MILLER J.
4
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for grand theft of lost property after finding no arguable issues upon independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.
Issues
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the petition to disclose juror contact information?
Did the trial court properly deny the motion for new trial?
Was there sufficient evidence that the theft exceeded $950?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.”