People v. Mendoza CA2/4

Filed 5/13/14 P. v. Mendoza CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B249258

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA058059) v.

STEPHANIE LEEANN MENDOZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charles A. Chung, Judge. Affirmed with instructions, and remanded. Paul R. Kraus, under appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson and Jessica C. Owen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________________

INTRODUCTION Stephanie Leeann Mendoza appeals following her convictions for second degree commercial burglary and petty theft with prior convictions. Her sole contention is that the sentence for petty theft should have been imposed and stayed, 1 pursuant to Penal Code section 654, as the theft and the burglary were both part of an indivisible course of conduct with a single intent and objective. The People agree, as do we. Accordingly, we will remand the matter to the superior court with instructions to stay the sentence as to the theft count. Otherwise, we affirm.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant was charged by information with second degree commercial burglary (§ 459, subd. (a); count 1) and petty theft with three priors (§ 666, subd. (a); count 2). As to both counts, it was alleged that appellant had served a prior prison term pursuant to section 667.5. A jury found appellant guilty on both counts. Subsequently, appellant admitted the prior conviction component of count two and the prior prison term allegation. The trial court sentenced appellant to three years in county jail for both counts, to be served concurrently, and an additional year on the section 667.5 enhancement. Appellant timely appealed.