People v. Roberts CA1/1

Filed 4/14/21 P. v. Roberts CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A160419 v. CHERRI BRIANA ROBERTS, (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCUK CRCR 20- Defendant and Appellant. 34073)

Defendant Cherri Briana Roberts appeals from a judgment sentencing her to 16 months in county jail after she pleaded no contest to one count of felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)).1 Defendant filed a notice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause, which the trial court granted. Her counsel has filed a brief raising no issues, but seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Defendant was informed of her right to file a supplemental brief but has not done so. Upon independent review of the record, we conclude no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm the judgment.

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless 1

otherwise indicated.

1

BACKGROUND In mid-January 2020, a Ukiah Community Service Officer notified the victim that someone had broken the windshield and left window of his (the victim’s) car. The officer “noticed a rusty wrench” next to the car. The vehicle had been “struck approximately five times,” and the estimated damage was “approximately $600.” The victim identified defendant as a possible suspect explaining, “she had stalked” and “harassed him for several years,” “believed she was in a relationship with [him],” “would often yell and curse at [him] when he walked to and from work,” and “had written a five- page letter to him and placed it on [his work] van,” in which she “wrote about their relationship and that she had broken up with him.” When questioned about the vandalism, defendant “initially denied any involvement but later said it was possible her alter-ego had been responsible.” She could not recall the incident but “acknowledged she is familiar with [the victim],” “believed he had stalked her,” and admitted that she had “recently found” the wrench that was found near the victim’s vehicle and had been keeping “it for self-defense.” The district attorney filed a complaint alleging one count of felony vandalism and that defendant had a prior conviction. After initially pleading not guilty, defendant later entered a no contest plea to felony vandalism with a “no prison promise,” and the People agreed to dismiss the prior conviction allegation. Defense counsel stipulated that a factual basis for the no contest plea existed. The court accepted the plea, finding defendant had made a “knowing and intelligent waiver of her rights and her plea was freely and voluntarily made.” At the next hearing, defense counsel requested a continuance for the sentencing hearing, explaining a mix up regarding the date of the probation