Opinion
H046798
06-26-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TINA RAE VALDEZ, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Monterey County Super. Ct. Nos. 18CR003609, 18CR009962, 18CR011957)
Defendant Tina Rae Valdez pleaded no contest to public intoxication, pleaded guilty to battery on a police officer, and admitted violating felony probation. The trial court sentenced her to a three-year split sentence, with 630 days to be served in county jail and 450 days of mandatory supervision. On appeal, defendant's counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asked this court to independently review the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We sent a letter to defendant notifying her of her right to submit a written argument on her own behalf on appeal. That notice was returned as undeliverable; defendant has not provided this court with an updated address.
In a declaration filed as part of the Wende brief, appellate counsel stated that he had written defendant advising her that a Wende brief would be filed and informing her of her rights to file a supplemental brief and to ask the court to have present counsel relieved and another attorney appointed.
Finding no arguable appellate issue, we affirm. We will provide "a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed," as required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110. We will further include information about aspects of the trial court proceedings that might become relevant in future proceedings. (Id. at p. 123.)
I. BACKGROUND
On April 11, 2018, defendant, who was homeless, asked a man she did not know for a ride. He drove her to a liquor store where he parked and entered the store. Defendant took the man's vehicle, which he had left running, and crashed it into a roundabout. After the accident, a breathalyzer recorded defendant's blood alcohol content to be 0.16 percent.
The Monterey County District Attorney charged defendant in case No. 18CR003609 with felony driving or taking a vehicle without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1), misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol (id., § 23152, subd. (a); count 2), and misdemeanor driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more (id., subd. (b); count 3). As to counts 2 and 3, it was alleged that defendant's blood alcohol content was 0.15 percent or more (id., § 23578) and that she had been convicted of driving under the influence in the prior 10 years (id., § 23540).
Also in April 2018, the court ordered a psychological evaluation of defendant pursuant to Penal Code section 1368. On May 8, 2018, the court determined that defendant was mentally competent.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. --------
On June 5, 2018, defendant pleaded no contest to counts 1 and 3 and admitted the allegations associated with count 3 in exchange for the dismissal of count 2 and a grant of felony probation.
On July 12, 2018, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for five years. The trial court dismissed count 2 and struck the associated allegations.
In October 2018, the Monterey County District Attorney charged defendant in case No. 18CR009962 with misdemeanor public intoxication (§ 647, subd. (f)). Defendant pleaded no contest to that charge on October 23, 2018.
In December 2018, the Monterey County District Attorney charged defendant in case No. 18CR011957 with battery on a police officer (§ 243, subd. (c)(2)) and resisting an officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)), both misdemeanors.
The probation department filed a notice of probation violation on February 25, 2019, alleging defendant had violated her probation in case No. 18CR003609 by leaving a rehabilitation program, failing to report to the probation officer, and failing to provide a current address.
At a hearing on February 27, 2019, defendant admitted violating her probation in case No. 18CR003609. At the same hearing, she pleaded guilty in case No. 18CR011957 to battery on a police officer (§ 243, subd. (c)(2)).
On April 4, 2019, the trial court sentenced defendant to a three-year split sentence, with 630 days to be served in county jail and 450 days of mandatory supervision. In case No. 18CR003609, the court imposed the upper term of three years for felony driving or taking a vehicle without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) with 630 days to be served in county jail and 450 days to be served on mandatory supervision. The court awarded defendant a total of 592 days of presentence credits, consisting of 296 days of actual custody and 296 days of conduct credits. The court ordered defendant to concurrently serve 364 days for driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more (id., § 23152, subd. (b); case No. 18CR003609), with credit for 364 days. The court ordered defendant to pay $4,770.48 in victim restitution (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)) and imposed the following fines and fees: a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) with an additional $300 mandatory supervision revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45, subd. (b)) suspended pending successful completion of mandatory supervision; a $40 court operations assessment fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)); a $30 court facilities assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373); and a $4 emergency medical air transportation fee (Gov. Code, § 76000.10). The court also ordered defendant to pay $864 for the cost of preparation of the probation report plus $81 per month for the cost of mandatory supervision (§ 1203.1b) in accordance with her ability to pay.
In case No. 18CR009962, the court sentenced defendant to a concurrent jail term of 180 days for misdemeanor public intoxication (§ 647, subd. (f)) with credits for 180 days (90 days of actual custody plus 90 days of conduct credits). The court ordered defendant to pay a $40 court operations assessment fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)) and a $30 court facilities assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373).
Finally, in case No. 18CR011957, the court sentenced defendant to a concurrent jail term of 205 days for battery on a police officer (§ 243, subd. (c)(2)) with credit for 205 days (103 days of actual custody and 102 days of conduct credits). The court ordered defendant to pay a $40 court operations assessment fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)) and a $30 court facilities assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373).
Defendant timely appealed.
II. DISCUSSION
Having examined the entire record, we conclude that there are no arguable issues on appeal.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
ELIA, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
PREMO, Acting P.J. /s/_________
BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J.