From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Clawson

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division
Feb 2, 2011
No. A128707 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2011)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONALD RUSSELL CLAWSON, Defendant and Appellant. A128707 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fifth Division February 2, 2011

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Napa County Super. Ct. No. CR148304

SIMONS, Acting P.J.

Defendant Ronald Russell Clawson pled no contest to four felony counts: theft from an elder adult (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (d)), identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)(1)), and two counts of fraudulent use of a contractor’s license number (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7027.3). Defendant was placed on probation for three years on the condition that he, among other things, pay $49,228 in victim restitution and serve 180 days in jail. Defendant’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 issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has not filed a supplementary brief. We find no arguable issues and affirm.

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

BACKGROUND

In September 2009, defendant was charged by felony complaint with 11 counts: theft from an elder adult (§ 368, subd. (d)) (count 1), three counts of diversion of construction funds (§ 484b) (counts 2, 6 & 9), three counts of grand theft of personal property (§ 487, subd. (a)) (counts 3, 7 & 10), three counts of fraudulent use of a contractor’s license number (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7027.3) (counts 4, 8 & 11), and identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)(1)) (count 5). The charges arose out of allegations that defendant used the number of a licensed contractor, Gary Clawson, to obtain construction work from three individuals, Mariano Favis, Larry Bluford, and Elizabeth Schrader. The deception was uncovered after defendant failed to complete the work.

This factual summary is derived from the probation officer’s summary of the Napa County Sheriff’s Department report.

Defendant pled no contest to counts 1, 5, 8, and 11. All other charges were dismissed with a Harvey waiver. Defendant agreed to pay $10,020 to victim Favis and $5,300 to victim Bluford in restitution; Gary Clawson did not seek restitution. The court scheduled a hearing to determine the amount of restitution to be paid to victim Schrader. It was agreed that if defendant paid all the restitution by the sentencing hearing, all counts would be reduced to misdemeanors.

People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.

At the conclusion of the restitution hearing, the court ordered defendant to pay $33,908 to victim Schrader as restitution. Defendant was unable to pay the total of $49,228 in restitution to the victims by the time of the sentencing hearing, and defendant was placed on probation for three years conditioned on, among other things, payment of the victim restitution and that he serve 180 days in jail.

DISCUSSION

We have reviewed the entire record and have found no arguable appellate issues. Defendant was adequately represented by legal counsel throughout the proceedings. Defendant completed a plea form that described the constitutional rights he was waiving by entering a no contest plea and, before defendant entered his plea, the trial court confirmed that he understood those rights. Defendant freely and voluntarily pled no contest to counts 1, 5, 8, and 11.

The trial court’s imposition of probation with conditions was appropriate in light of the facts of the case, and consistent with the plea agreement. The restitution fines imposed by the court were proper. In particular, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of restitution due to victim Schrader, following a contested restitution hearing, and requiring defendant to pay the restitution as a condition of probation. (People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 663 & fn. 7.)

Appellate counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplementary brief to bring to the court’s attention any issue he believed deserved review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Defendant did not file a supplementary brief. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur. NEEDHAM, J., BRUINIERS, J.


Summaries of

People v. Clawson

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division
Feb 2, 2011
No. A128707 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2011)
Case details for

People v. Clawson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONALD RUSSELL CLAWSON, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division

Date published: Feb 2, 2011

Citations

No. A128707 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2011)