People v. Patterson CA2/2

Filed 10/26/21 P. v. Patterson CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B310805

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA097642) v.

SARA SONG PATTERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: Sara Song Patterson (appellant) pleaded no contest to two counts of grand theft of an automobile (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (d)(1))1 and two counts of identity theft (§ 530.5. subd. (a)). She admitted that a 2008 robbery conviction qualified as a serious and/or violent felony under the “Three Strikes” law. (§§ 667, 1170.12.) In addition, she admitted to engaging in a pattern of two or more related felony crimes which resulted in a loss

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

exceeding $100,000. (§ 186.11, subd. (a)(3).) At sentencing, the strike prior was stricken pursuant to the plea agreement. The trial court imposed the upper term of three years on one grand theft charge, plus an additional year under section 186.11, subdivision (a)(3). On each of the remaining three counts, it imposed consecutive eight-month terms. About a month later, the parties stipulated to victim restitution of $4,956. The trial court imposed the agreed restitution pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (f). In addition, it imposed a $300 restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b). In the beginning of 2021, appellant filed a petition to modify the restitution order pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 1869 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2020, ch. 92), a bill that added, amended or repealed various statutes related to fees imposed by the courts on defendants following conviction. The trial court summarily denied appellant’s motion. This appeal followed. Appointed counsel filed a brief that raised no issues regarding the denial of appellants’ petition and, instead, requested that we follow the procedures set forth in People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano). He declared: “I have written to appellant and explained my evaluation of the record on appeal and my intention to file [a Serrano brief]. I have also informed appellant of her right to file a supplemental brief and warned her that her appeal could be dismissed. I have also sent appellant the transcript of the record on appeal and a copy of this brief.” This matter was submitted on June 21, 2021.