People v. Falcon CA5

Filed 2/8/23 P. v. Falcon CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F084398 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F20901741) v.

CLAUDIA FALCON, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Monica R. Diaz, Judge. Martin Baker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Poochigian, J. and Meehan, J.

Appointed counsel for defendant Claudia Falcon asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of her right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant responded, contending she should have been allowed to withdraw her no contest plea because she was coerced into accepting the plea when the trial court and her attorney both told her she would await trial for many months due to the pandemic but would be released immediately if she pled. She claims she is innocent of the crimes and is now unable to find employment due to her felony conviction. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND We quote the following information contained in the probation officer’s report and taken from the Fresno Police Department crime report:

“The 40-year-old Confidential Victim (CV) and [defendant] were in a prior romantic relationship for approximately six[]months. They have no children in common but were residing together at the time of the instant offense.

“On March 4, 2020, the CV and [defendant] got into a verbal argument earlier in the day, after she accused him of making stops at different places on his way home from work. After the argument, the two left the residence.

“The CV later returned home with a female friend. After [defendant] returned home later that evening, she attempted to force her way into the residence via the back window. After [defendant] had broken the screen on the window, the CV walked to the front door and allowed her inside.