People v. Dunham CA1/5

Filed 3/28/25 P. v. Dunham CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, A170566 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Del Norte County Super. Ct. No. CRF 22-9071) LINDSEY DUNHAM, Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Defendant Lindsey Dunham appeals following her plea of guilty to one count of theft by a public officer under Penal Code section 424, subdivision (a).2 The trial court found the plea agreement to be in the interests of justice and sentenced her to a stipulated maximum term of two years in state prison. Dunham’s appointed counsel on appeal filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), and Dunham did not file a supplemental brief. Having conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to the holding in that case, we affirm. An information charged Dunham with one count of theft by a public

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it raises no

substantial issue of fact or law. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) 2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

officer. (§ 424, subd. (a).) Dunham initially entered a plea of no contest and agreed to a sentence of two years of felony probation and up to 30 days in county jail. In its presentence report, the probation department recommended that the trial court reject the plea because of the nature of the crime and Dunham’s deceitful responses during her interview with the probation officer. The report also noted that Dunham was presumptively ineligible for probation pursuant to section 1203, subdivision (e)(7).3 Accordingly, the court rejected the plea agreement. Dunham then entered into a new plea agreement in which she pled guilty to theft by a public officer and agreed to a sentence ranging from a grant of probation to a maximum term of two years in state prison. The probation department filed a supplemental report which recommended that the trial court impose the maximum two-year prison term. The report again noted that Dunham was presumptively ineligible for probation pursuant to section 1203, subdivision (e)(7) and that no circumstances existed to overcome this presumption. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel stated that he was concerned about Dunham’s mental state because she apparently believed that her maximum sentence was only one year under the terms of the plea agreement. Defense counsel asked the trial court to “appoint a doctor to evaluate [Dunham’s] mental status pursuant to [section] 1368.” The prosecution opposed this request. After speaking with Dunham during a recess, defense counsel retracted his request and stated that he did not