People v. Brown CA3

Filed 4/17/14 P. v. Brown CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C074442

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13F00085)

v.

CLARISSA BROWN,

Defendant and Appellant.

This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We shall affirm the judgment.

1

BACKGROUND On January 3, 2013, defendant Clarissa Brown received property that had been stolen.1 In February 2013, an amended complaint was filed alleging two counts of first degree robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (a); 213, subd. (a)(1)(A);2 counts one and two.) In April 2013, the amended complaint was amended by interlineation to allege, as count three, misdemeanor receiving stolen property. (§ 496, subd. (a).) Defendant pleaded no contest to count three and stipulated a factual basis for the plea. The plea was conditioned upon defendant’s payment of restitution to the persons named as victims in counts one and two in an amount to be determined. In May 2013, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on informal probation for three years on the condition, among others, that she serve 180 days of incarceration with a total of 148 days of credit already accumulated. The trial court ordered defendant to make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount to be determined, and to pay a $140 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $140 restitution fine suspended unless probation is revoked (§ 1202.44), and various other fees and assessments. Counts one and two were dismissed with a Harvey waiver3 for restitution. In August 2013, the trial court heard and denied defendant’s motion to strike any order of restitution or restitution in an amount to be determined. The court rejected defendant’s argument that the plea agreement had not contemplated a Harvey waiver for

1 Because the matter was resolved by plea and defendant was placed on informal probation without preparation of a probation report, our statement of facts is taken from the prosecutor’s oral motion to amend the complaint. 2 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 3 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.