Opinion
A153099 A153627
08-17-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CRYSTLE ROSE PARSTCHLUCCHESI, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 17-SF-007039)
Defendant and appellant Crystle Rose Parstchlucchesi pled no contest to one count of unlawful possession of the identifying information of multiple persons (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (c)(3)), and the trial court sentenced her to an eight-month term. Appellant's counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable sentencing or other post-plea issues. (See Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not filed a supplemental brief. We affirm but remand for clarification of the fines imposed.
All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
BACKGROUND
In June 2017, appellant was charged by complaint with unlawful possession of identifying information with a prior (count one; § 530.5, subd. (c)(2)); unlawful possession of the identifying information of ten or more persons (count two; § 530.5, subd. (c)(3)); unlawful use of identifying information (count three; § 530.5, subd. (a)); and possession of a controlled substance (count four; Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)).
According to the probation officer's summary, the charges were based on a May 2017 incident in which appellant was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by the California Highway Patrol. The driver was on probation with a search condition, and he was found to possess burglary tools and shaved keys. Appellant provided a fraudulent identification card, and she admitted being in possession of methamphetamine. A search of the vehicle interior and trunk uncovered, among other things, mail belonging to several other individuals, checks issued to others, and notebooks containing the personal identifying information of various persons.
In November 2017, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, appellant entered a no contest plea to count two with the understanding the trial court would impose an eight-month term. The trial court sentenced appellant to an eight-month term, consecutive to the sentence in a separate Santa Clara County case.
The trial court also imposed fines, although it is unclear what fines were imposed. At sentencing, the court said, "you shall pay fines of $370." The court's minute order lists a $400 "Criminal Violation Distribution." And the abstract of judgment refers to a $300 restitution fine under section 1202.4, subdivision (b); it also states "Total Fine/Fees $400 — Including 10% PC 1202.4(B) Admin Fee."
DISCUSSION
Appellant's no contest plea restricts the scope of the appeal before us. Because she did not request a certificate of probable cause, her appeal is limited to "postplea claims, including sentencing issues, that do not challenge the validity of the plea." (People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374, 379; People v. Brown (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 356, 359-360.)
Appellate counsel advised appellant of her right to file a supplemental brief to bring to this court's attention any issue she believes deserves review. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Appellant did not file a supplemental brief.
We have reviewed the entire record and have found no arguable appellate issues. We do, however, direct the trial court on remand to clarify the fines imposed.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. On remand, the trial court is directed to clarify the fines imposed, prepare an amended abstract of judgment, and forward it to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
/s/_________
SIMONS, J. We concur. /s/_________
JONES, P.J. /s/_________
NEEDHAM, J.