People v. Deardorf CA3

Filed 2/19/26 P. v. Deardorf CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C103381

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CF01309)

v.

KAYTLYNNE DEARDORF,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Kaytlynne Michelle Deardorf filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In March 2022, the People charged defendant with child custody deprivation as a felony (Pen. Code, § 278.5, subd. (a)).1 In September 2022, the trial court denied defendant’s Marsden motion. (See People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.) Later that month, defendant indicated she wished to represent herself but ultimately withdrew the request. In 2024, the People amended the information to charge defendant with child custody deprivation as a misdemeanor. Defendant pled no contest to that offense. The trial court sentenced defendant to one-year informal court probation, credited her for time served, and ordered no additional jail time. The court imposed a $150 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $150 probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). Defendant timely appeals. DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (See People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of her right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.