People v. Traylor CA6

Filed 1/31/14 P. v. Traylor CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H039623 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1080918)

v.

AEVRA SHAEFONA TRAYLOR,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Aevra Shaefona Traylor appeals from a judgment entered after she admitted a probation violation and her probation was revoked. Defendant’s counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel has declared that defendant was notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal, and that an independent review under Wende was being requested. We notified defendant of her right to submit a written argument on her own behalf. Defendant has filed a supplemental letter brief arguing that the two-year term in county jail imposed by the trial court was overly harsh, that the judge failed to take her mental health problems into consideration during sentencing, and that she did not intend to violate her probation.1

1 This court initially sent a letter to defendant advising her that we would be treating the brief filed by her counsel under the standards enunciated in People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496. On September 9, 2013, defendant filed a request for reconsideration asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant (continued)

Pursuant to Wende, we reviewed the entire record and found two arguable issues regarding the imposition of a parole revocation restitution fine and a probation revocation restitution fine. We asked both parties to file supplemental letter briefs addressing these issues. We modify the judgment and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A complaint was filed on June 29, 2010, charging defendant with one count of grand theft (Pen. Code,2 §§ 484, 487, subd. (a)), two counts of forgery (§ 470, subd. (d)), and one count of attempted grand theft (§§ 664, 484, 487, subd. (a)). The underlying facts are not included in the record on appeal, but the petition to modify probation states that the charges stem from defendant and her codefendant’s deposit of a counterfeit check. Defendant pleaded no contest to the count of grand theft (§§ 484, 487, subd. (a)) and forgery (§ 470, subd. (d)) on February 1, 2011. Defendant’s counsel stipulated that there was a factual basis for the plea in the investigative reports. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on felony probation for three years under various terms and conditions, including that she pay $2,500 restitution to Citibank and serve 45 days in county jail. The trial court also imposed a $200 restitution fund fine. The probation department filed a petition to modify the terms of defendant’s probation, which was set for a hearing on July 19, 2012. The petition alleged the following: (1) defendant had been convicted of violating section 245, subdivision (a)(1) (assault with a deadly weapon or great bodily injury) in Alameda County; (2) she had