People v. Vogel CA3

Filed 6/17/25 P. v. Vogel CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C101653

v. (Super. Ct. No. 24CF02275)

STEPHANIE MARIE VOGEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Stephanie Marie Vogel asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

1

I In May 2024, staff at a supermarket reported that defendant was throwing trash in front of the store and causing a disturbance. When contacted by police officers, defendant gave a false name. Officers arrested defendant for public intoxication. Defendant struggled with the officers and fell to the ground. An officer observed a knife with a 10-inch blade protruding from defendant’s clothing, removed it, and located a second knife with an eight-inch blade under her shirt. Defendant pleaded no contest to carrying a dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, § 21310 -- count 1) and misdemeanor resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1) -- count 3). At sentencing, the trial court determined defendant had experienced trauma that contributed to the commission of the offenses, but the low term would not be in the interest of justice because aggravating factors, including defendant’s prior convictions, prior prison terms, and the fact she had been on probation at the time of the offenses, outweighed the mitigating factor. The trial court sentenced defendant to the middle term of two years on count 1, and one year concurrent on count 3. It also imposed concurrent sentences for probation violations. And it imposed minimum fines and fees which it found defendant had the ability to pay. Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. II Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.