Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, No. FSB704638, Annemarie G. Pace, Judge.
Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Manuel Castulo Cortes.
Patrick E. DuNah, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Martina Cortes.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Ramirez, P.J.
Defendant Manuel Castulo Cortes (Manuel) appeals from the restitution order entered after his guilty plea and stipulated sentence. His wife and codefendant, Martina Cortes (Martina), appeals from the sentence or other matter occurring after the entry of her guilty plea.
BACKGROUND
On July 9, 2006, defendants filed a claim with AAA Insurance Company (AAA) for the theft of their 2006 Lincoln Mark LT truck, indicating on the claim forms that they had both keys to the vehicle. When the vehicle was recovered, one of the two original keys was with the vehicle, and the displayed vehicle identification number (VIN) had been switched.
When California Highway Patrol Officer Padilla contacted defendant at his home to investigate the stolen Lincoln truck, a 2006 Ford F-350 was found parked in front of defendants’ residence. A check of the displayed and confidential VIN numbers revealed this vehicle’s numbers had been switched and the pickup had been reported stolen in June 2007. The defendants’ neighbor reported seeing Manuel driving the truck.
In December 2006, investigator Stroud went to the defendants’ residence after determining that a 2004 Cadillac Escalade that was parked in their driveway, also had switched VIN numbers. This vehicle had been reported stolen by another individual in October 2006.
In October 2007, the Coachella Valley narcotics task force served a search warrant at a Coachella residence. While there, the officers ran license plate checks on a Ford F-250 parked at the residence. A Department of Justice hit came up on the plate indicating the Ford F-250 pickup had a switched VIN. The vehicle was registered as a 2003 model, but was actually a 2000 F-250 that had been reported stolen in April 2007. The VIN that was displayed did not match the true VIN. Investigator Stroud spoke to the resident at the location where the F-250 was parked and learned that a man who called himself “Castulo, ” later identified as defendant Manuel (whose middle name is Castulo), had asked to park the vehicle there.
The defendants were charged with one count of insurance fraud (Pen. Code, § 550, subd. (a)(1), count 1), and three counts of receiving, concealing, selling or withholding a stolen motor vehicle. (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a), counts 2, 3, 4.) It was further alleged that defendant Manuel had previously been convicted of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Strikes law. (Pen. Code, § 1170.12, subd. (a)(d).)
On April 24, 2009, both defendants pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain. Defendant Manuel agreed to plead guilty to count 1, insurance fraud, in return for a stipulated sentence of five years in state prison and dismissal of the remaining counts, waiving his right to a probation report. He requested a restitution hearing. Martina pled guilty to three counts of receiving stolen vehicles (counts 2, 3, and 4), in return for a dismissal of count 1 and a grant of probation. The terms of both plea bargains included a waiver of appeal rights. Manuel requested immediate sentencing and was committed to state prison for five years pursuant to the plea bargain.
On July 22, 2009, the court ordered restitution to AAA in the amount of $14,094, and placed Martina on five years’ probation with terms and conditions including 180 days in county jail. Defendant Manuel timely appealed from the restitution order, and Martina appealed from the sentence or other matter occurring after the plea.
DISCUSSION
Counsel for both defendants have filed briefs under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting that we undertake an independent review of the entire record. We offered each defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but neither has done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error.
Because both defendants waived the right to appeal from the conviction and judgment, any error occurring at the sentencing has been forfeited. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 80; People v. Berkowitz (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 671, 676-678.) Additionally, at the restitution hearing, counsel for both defendants stipulated to the amount of restitution. They have waived any right to challenge the order setting restitution to the victim.
We have completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Richli, J., King, J.