From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bautista

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
Mar 29, 2010
No. H034714 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2010)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. APOLONIA BAUTISTA, Defendant and Appellant. H034714 California Court of Appeal, Sixth District March 29, 2010

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC892807

Duffy, J.

The defendant, Apolonia Bautista, pleaded no contest to three counts of grand theft by an employee (Pen. Code, §§ 484, 487, former subd. (b)(3); Stats. 2002, ch. 787, § 12). There was an enhancement allegation that the stolen property’s value exceeded $65,000 (Pen. Code, § 12022.6, subd. (a)(1)), but the allegation was stricken at time of entry of defendant’s plea at the prosecution’s request and defendant did not answer it. The trial court sentenced defendant to five years’ formal probation, one condition of which was to serve four months in jail, and ordered defendant to pay victim restitution of $1,000 per month between the time of sentencing and the time of access to her retirement account and thereafter a lump sum for the balance, for a total of $147,047.17. Defendant had already repaid $65,000 by the time of sentencing.

FACTS

According to the company’s vice president of finance, defendant embezzled from her employer, J. Lohr Vineyards & Wines, in the three years covered by the three charged counts. The company incurred a total compensable loss of $147,047.17. The record contains no further details regarding the crimes.

DISCUSSION

Counsel for defendant has filed an opening brief that states the case and facts but raises no issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was entitled to file her own letter brief but did not do so. We have, as required by Wende and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124, set forth herein the facts, the procedural background (including a description of the crimes of which defendant was convicted), and the disposition of defendant’s case, and reviewed the entire relevant record. After reviewing the record, we have determined that it discloses no legal issues. Therefore, we must affirm the judgment.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: Rushing, P. J. Premo, J.


Summaries of

People v. Bautista

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
Mar 29, 2010
No. H034714 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2010)
Case details for

People v. Bautista

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. APOLONIA BAUTISTA, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

Date published: Mar 29, 2010

Citations

No. H034714 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2010)