People v. Giron CA6

Filed 5/14/24 P. v. Giron CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H040230 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. Plaintiff and Respondent, No. F1242914)

v.

LIZA MARIE GIRON,

Defendant and Appellant.

I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Liza Marie Giron pleaded no contest to one count of vandalism. She was placed on three years’ formal probation and ordered to pay fines, assessments, and fees. By letter dated January 9, 2014, this court notified defendant that her appellate counsel filed a brief identifying no arguable issues on appeal and invited defendant to submit any argument on her own behalf. Defendant did not respond to that letter. For the reasons stated below, we will affirm the judgment. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the entire record to determine whether appointed counsel has correctly determined that there are no arguable appellate issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) In performing our review, we are required to give a brief description of the facts, the procedural history, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and

the punishment imposed, and to address any contentions personally raised by the defendant. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.) III. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Defendant was charged by felony complaint with one count of vandalism over $10,000 (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)), occurring on or about June 5 or 6, 2012. According to the probation report, police responded to a possible burglary at a Morgan Hill residence. Police observed clothes and personal property strewn over the floor. The washing machine hose had been cut, releasing water that damaged carpet, flooring and cabinets. Police contacted defendant, the resident’s caretaker, who admitted vandalizing the home because she was angry with the resident. On September 6, 2012, pursuant to a negotiated agreement which included up to five years’ probation and no additional jail time, defendant pleaded no contest to the felony complaint and was released from custody that day. The victim told the probation officer that damages totaled $52,000, but he had not submitted any receipts for repairs as of November 2, 2012, the date the probation report was written. Defendant told the probation officer that the incident was caused by a faulty washing machine, and she disputed the amount of restitution requested by the victim. Over the next twelve months, the matter was reset several times for sentencing and a restitution hearing. On August 22, 2013, anticipating that restitution would be left as a general order, the prosecutor asked that the restitution hearing be taken off calendar. At the court’s suggestion, the parties agreed to proceed to sentencing instead of having the case return to the judge who had accepted defendant’s plea. The court indicated that the probation report was in the file and that and it would follow the plea bargain. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, credited defendant for 96 days served in county jail, and placed defendant on three years’ formal probation. The court ordered no contact with the victim and restitution to be determined. It imposed search conditions and a ban on possessing firearms or ammunition. The court also ordered