P. v. Holman CA1/2

Filed 5/16/13 P. v. Holman CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A136657 v. KAREN L. HOLMAN, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR616466) Defendant and Appellant.

Counsel appointed for defendant Karen L. Holman has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Defendant was apprised of her right to file a supplemental brief, but she did not do so. We have conducted our review, and conclude there are no arguable issues. We thus affirm. Our examination1 reveals that on the morning of April 11, 2012, 12-year-old B.J. was at his home in Santa Rosa, having stayed home from school because he was ill. B.J.’s uncle, who was staying with him, left to run an errand, leaving B.J. home alone. While watching television in his mother’s bedroom, B.J. heard his dogs barking, followed by a knock at the front door. He left the bedroom and, peeking through a window, saw a woman he did not recognize standing outside the front door looking over her shoulder toward the street. The woman was wearing a red sweatshirt, blue jeans, and black UGG-style boots. 1 Because defendant entered into a negotiated plea agreement we derive the factual background from the probation report.

1

B.J. ran back to his mother’s bedroom, opened the bedroom door and looked down the hallway, and saw the woman carrying his laptop computer out of the home. He looked outside the bedroom window facing the front driveway and saw the woman in a white vehicle. B.J. recorded the license plate number in his IPOD, and telephoned his mother, before calling 911 to report the incident. B.J. provided a detailed description of the woman to investigators. B.J. also described the stolen laptop as a black Hewlett Packard computer with a stain on it from a spilled drink, with a key missing from the keyboard. A deputy conducted a records check on the license plate provided by B.J. and it revealed a white Volkswagen registered to defendant. The records check also showed defendant was on active parole for burglary, and lived approximately two blocks from the victim’s home. Later that same day, a deputy observed a white Volkswagen Passat driving eastbound near Calistoga Road bearing a license plate that matched the description provided by B.J. The deputy effected an enforcement stop and found defendant driving the vehicle, with her 16-year-old daughter in the passenger seat. Defendant immediately told the deputy she was not on parole anymore and asked why she was stopped. After further brief conversation, defendant became frustrated and asked the detective why they were asking her questions. Another detective arrived and told defendant that her vehicle and a female matching her description committed a burglary a short distance away. Defendant became upset and told the detective she was “off parole” and not in trouble any more. Defendant reiterated that she did not commit the burglary because she would be sent back to prison. By felony complaint filed April 13, 2012, defendant was charged with one count of residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)2 and one count of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). It was further alleged that defendant suffered a prior serious or violent felony under the Three Strikes Law (§ 1170.12) and a prior serious felony (§ 667,