From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cavalieri

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division
Jul 8, 2008
No. B200901 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 8, 2008)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. SA058504, Cynthia Rayvis, Judge.

Linda Acaldo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


WOODS, Acting P. J.

On November 11, 2005, Giovanni Omar Cavalieri burglarized the residence of Dan Cole. Within days, Cavalieri was arrested. Officers transporting him to the police station recovered a baggie containing methamphetamine that was on the police car floor near Cavalieri’s feet. On November 22, 2005, Cavalieri was charged by felony complaint with one count of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and one count of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) in Los Angeles Superior Court (LASC) case No. SA058504.

On July 29, 2005, following a consent search, police recovered baggies of cocaine and methamphetamine on Cavalieri’s person. He was charged with two counts of possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11351, 11378) in LASC case No. SA058009.

The two cases were disposed of on January 3, 2006. Cavalieri, who was represented by counsel, waived his rights to a jury trial and entered a negotiated plea of no contest to first degree residential burglary in LASC case No. SA058504 and to possession of cocaine for sale in LASC case No. SA058009. In exchange, imposition of sentence was suspended and Cavalieri was placed on three years formal probation in both cases, on condition he serve current terms of 365 days in county jail, with credit for time served. Defense counsel joined in the waivers and stipulated to a factual basis for the pleas. The trial court found the pleas were freely and voluntarily entered, and there was a factual basis for the pleas. Remaining counts were dismissed on the People’s motion as part of the plea agreement.

On April 2, 2006, June 13, 2006, July 27, 2006, and March 8, 2007, Cavalieri admitted he had violated probation. Each time, the trial court revoked and reinstated probation and imposed some additional terms and conditions.

On June 12, 2007, Cavalieri admitted he had violated probation. This time the trial court revoked probation and sentenced Cavalieri to the middle term of four years in state prison in LASC case No. SA058504. Cavalieri received presentence custody credit of 624 days (416 actual days and 208 days of conduct credit). The court ordered Cavalieri to pay a $20 security assessment and a $200 restitution fine. A parole revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45. Probation was terminated in LASC case No. SA058009. A restitution hearing was scheduled.

Cavalieri’s prison sentence was to be served concurrently with the sentences imposed the same day in two other cases, LASC case Nos. SA063179 and SA063695, neither of which is before us on appeal.

After the June 27, 2007 restitution hearing, the trial court ordered Cavalieri to pay Dan Cole restitution in the amount of $10,804.69 (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f)). Cavalieri timely appealed challenging “the determination of the restitution.”

We appointed counsel to represent Cavalieri on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised. On January 30, 2008, we advised Cavalieri he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Cavalieri’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The record fails to demonstrate the order of $10,804.69 in restitution was an abuse of discretion. The trial court relied on a factual and rational basis for the amount of restitution ordered. (See People v. Hudson (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 924, 927.)

The order is affirmed.

We concur: ZELON, J., JACKSON, J.


Summaries of

People v. Cavalieri

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division
Jul 8, 2008
No. B200901 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 8, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Cavalieri

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GIOVANNI O. CAVALIERI, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division

Date published: Jul 8, 2008

Citations

No. B200901 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 8, 2008)