Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People v. Dede Jane Arostegui

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT


December 29, 2010

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
DEDE JANE AROSTEGUI, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Super. Ct. Nos. CRF09-1322, CRF10-1020

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Butz,j.

P. v. Arostegui 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Sutter

In May 2009, defendant Dede Jane Arostegui entered a Yuba City market with the intent to pass a counterfeit check. She cashed a $710 check from the Department of Child Support California State Disbursement and used the proceeds to purchase $71.60 in merchandise, taking the remainder in cash. The check was not honored and later was returned to the market marked "Altered/Fictitious, Do Not Re-Deposit." When interviewed by the probation officer, defendant claimed she had received the check in the mail and had cashed it even though she knew it "wasn't right," since she has no children.

In January 2010, in case No. CRF09-1322, defendant pleaded no contest to second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b))*fn1 and admitted that she had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) for first degree burglary. In exchange, two related counts, three allegations of commission of a new felony while released on a pending felony (§ 12022.1), four allegations of prior prison terms, and an unrelated case (No. CRF09-0761) were dismissed. In addition, the prosecution agreed to withdraw an amendment alleging a prior serious felony conviction.

Following the change of plea hearing, the matter was continued for sentencing with an eventual hearing date of April 5, 2010. On that date, defendant failed to appear for the scheduled hearing and the matter was continued to April 12, 2010, at which time she again failed to appear.

On May 14, 2010, in case No. CRF10-1020, defendant pleaded no contest to failure to appear on a felony charge. (§ 1320, subd. (b).) In exchange, an allegation of commission of a new felony while released on a pending felony was dismissed. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for four years eight months, consisting of three years for the burglary, eight months for the failure to appear, and one year for the prior prison term. She was awarded 16 days of custody credit and eight days of conduct credit.*fn2

In case No. CRF09-1322, defendant was ordered to make restitution to the victim and to pay a $600 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $600 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (id., § 1202.45), a $30 court security fee (id., § 1465.8), and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). In case No. CRF10-1020, defendant was ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine, a $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked, a $30 court security fee, and a $30 court facilities assessment.

Defendant appeals. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

However, we note a minor error on the abstract of judgment. The statutory basis for the one-year enhancement in case No. CRF09-1322 must be listed as section 667.5, subdivision (b), not section 12022.1.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment and to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

We concur:

RAYE, P.J.

NICHOLSON,J.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.