People v. Kiel CA1/1

Filed 12/22/25 P. v. Kiel CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A172737 v. NINA LACY KIEL, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 23-SF-016254-A) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Nina Lacy Kiel appeals from the trial court’s judgment executing a county jail sentence following a contested probation violation hearing. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), Kiel’s counsel filed a brief requesting this court independently review the record and determine whether arguable issues exist on appeal. Finding none, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND In October 2023, Kiel was charged by felony complaint with one count of bringing contraband into a jail (Pen. Code,1 § 4573, subd. (a)). In July 2024, Kiel pled no contest to the charge in exchange for a two year “lid” and referral to drug court. The agreed upon county jail sentence would be “straight time,” with no “split” pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h). In

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

December 2024, the trial court imposed the low term sentence of two years in county jail, with execution of sentence suspended. The court placed Kiel on two years formal probation subject to various terms and conditions, including that she participate in the Pathways treatment program, obey all laws, abstain from the possession and use of alcohol and controlled substances, submit to alcohol and drug testing, and submit her person, residence, and any area under her control to search. The court awarded 70 days actual credits and 70 days conduct credits for a total of 140 days. The court imposed and stayed a $300 restitution fine and a $300 probation revocation fine. It advised Kiel that if she violated her probation, she would “not get another chance to continue on probation” and would “not get another chance at Pathways. Probation will terminate, and the balance of the two-year term in custody will be imposed.” Only days later, the probation department filed an affidavit of probation violation alleging that Kiel violated the terms of her probation by failing to obey all laws in that she violated section 459.5 (shoplifting) and Health and Safety Code sections 11377, subdivision (a) (possession of a controlled substance) and 11364 (possession of a drug pipe). Kiel denied the allegations. The trial court revoked probation and set a hearing. In January 2025, the trial court conducted a contested probation violation hearing. Belmont police officer Adam Baggetta testified to the following: On December 7, 2024, he responded to a report of a theft at a Safeway involving two suspects, a male and a female. The male suspect had been detained and the female suspect was described as wearing a purple jacket and black leggings and riding a bike. Kiel, matching the description, was then detained one block from the store. Paperwork in Kiel’s name was found in a bike near where she was located. While Kiel was not wearing a