Opinion
C084474
05-23-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RANDNETTE FRANCINE BILLINGS, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 12F03169)
This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
An amended consolidated complaint that was deemed an information charged defendant Randnette Francine Billings with felony welfare fraud (count 1; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 10980, subd. (c)(2)); perjury on an aid application (count 2; Pen. Code, § 118, subd. (a)); offering a false document at trial (count 3; § 132); obtaining money exceeding $950 by fraudulent means (count 4; § 487, subd. (a)), and submitting fraudulent time sheets to In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) (count 5; § 72).
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
After a jury trial, defendant was convicted on all counts.
The trial evidence showed that defendant received a total of $56,813 in cash aid and food stamps (CalWORKs & CalFresh) during the years 2006 through 2010, based on her representation that she had no income, while in fact she earned income during that period by working for IHSS as an in-home caregiver. When an administrative hearing was held to determine whether she had received an overpayment of welfare funds and an overissue of food stamps, she submitted a letter to the administrative law judge presiding over the hearing, purportedly from IHSS, that stated she had not been employed by IHSS; however, that letter was later determined to have been forged by defendant. When a person to whom she administered care through IHSS was hospitalized and then died, defendant continued to submit time sheets and received payment of $2,139.28 for work she had not performed.
The trial court imposed a split sentence of four years four months, of which the first two years were to be served in county jail and the last two years four months on mandatory supervision. (§ 1170, subd. (h)(5)(B).) The court imposed three years, the midterm, on count 2, plus eight months consecutive (one-third the midterm) on counts 3 and 4; the court imposed but stayed two-year terms on counts 1 and 5 (§ 654). The court awarded defendant 408 days of presentence custody credit (204 actual days & 204 conduct days).
The trial court imposed a $400 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $400 suspended probation violation restitution fine (§ 1202.44), a $200 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), a $150 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), a $10 criminal prevention fine (§ 1205.5), and a criminal impact fee of 20 percent of the base fine amount (§ 1465.7, subd. (a)). The court ordered victim restitution in the amounts of $53,613 to the Sacramento County Department of Human Assistance and $2,139.28 to IHSS.
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. (Wende, supra, 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 elapsed, and we 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.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Blease, Acting P. J. We concur: /s/_________
Mauro, J. /s/_________
Renner, J.