People v. Arevalo CA3

Filed 11/10/14 P. v. Arevalo CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sutter)

THE PEOPLE, C075052

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF12-1323)

v.

MONICA RENEE AREVALO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Following a jury trial, defendant Monica Renee Arevalo was convicted of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)1 and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), and sentenced to an aggregate term of two years in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends she cannot be convicted of both “stealing and receiving the same property.” Defendant also contends the trial court relied on “improper factors” in denying her probation. We conclude defendant was properly convicted of both crimes and any error in denying defendant’s probation was harmless. We affirm the judgment.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 Defendant was charged with entering an inhabited dwelling house of another with the intent to commit theft and/or any felony therein (§ 459), and receiving stolen goods (§ 496, subd. (a)). After she was found competent to stand trial a jury found defendant guilty as charged. At sentencing, defendant argued that although she was statutorily ineligible for probation, her case was unusual and the court should grant her probation. The trial court disagreed, finding the case was not unusual. In reaching its decision, the trial court found: “there is certainly nothing about the offense that would show that this is an unusual case. And there is really nothing, as I look at the factors in mitigation submitted by [defendant] or anywhere else, that would indicate that this is an unusual case.” The court then outlined the criteria it considered under California Rules of Court, rule 4.4143 in reaching its decision. Those factors include that: the crime was carried out in a professional manner, defendant’s record of criminal activity was increasing in seriousness, defendant’s ability to comply with probation would be limited due to her history of substance abuse, emotional injury was inflicted on the victim, defendant was a danger to others, and defendant had not shown any remorse for her crimes. The court also noted the rule 4.414 factors it considered that weighed in favor of granting defendant probation: defendant’s prior performance on probation was satisfactory and defendant had expressed a willingness to comply with the terms of probation. On balance, the trial court concluded, defendant’s case was not unusual. The trial court then sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of two years in state prison.