Opinion
E070792
12-17-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEONORA GRAJEDA, Defendant and Appellant.
Eric E. Reynolds, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. FSB17002013) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Colin J. Bilash, Judge. Affirmed. Eric E. Reynolds, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Leonora Grajeda was charged by felony complaint with one count of obtaining aid by misrepresentation (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 10980, subd. (c)(2), count 1) and six counts of perjury-welfare fraud (Pen. Code, § 118, subd. (a), counts 2-7). Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to count 1. In exchange, a trial court dismissed the remaining counts and placed defendant on probation for a period of five years under specified conditions.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The parties stipulated that the police report contained a factual basis for the plea. The following factual summary is taken from the police report. Defendant was an approved San Bernardino County childcare provider since 2004. She stopped reporting her income from 2011 to 2016 and applied for and received cash aid and food stamp benefits that she was not entitled to. When asked why she stopped reporting her income, she said she had no valid reason for it. She said she just did not feel the need to report her income anymore.
ANALYSIS
Defendant appealed, and upon her request this court appointed counsel to represent her. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and the following potential arguable issues: (1) whether defendant's various terms and conditions of probation were constitutional; and (2) whether the trial court erred in adding a 15 percent county collection fee to the amount of victim restitution defendant was ordered to pay.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which she has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error. We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
Acting P. J. We concur: SLOUGH
J. FIELDS
J.