Opinion
E047143
7-15-2009
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANNETTE GALVEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
James M. Kehoe, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Not to be Published in Official Reports
Key scratches were discovered on 11 new and used vehicles at a dealership after defendant, Annette Galvez, was seen walking past them in the lot. She was convicted of vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)) following a jury trial and placed on probation.
BACKGROUND
Sometime before September 14, 2007, defendant purchased an Infiniti G35 sedan, making a down payment of $5000 with a check on which she later stopped payment. On September 14, 2007, defendant went to Metro Honda dealership in Montclair with paperwork that she wanted the controller to review. The controller informed defendant that they had spent enough time discussing the issues regarding money she owed the dealership and they were not going to discuss it further. The controller returned to his office but defendant did not leave immediately. Defendant was not happy about being rebuffed.
Sometime later that day and the next day, deep scratches were discovered on 11 new and used vehicles on the dealership lot. It was determined that the vehicles were undamaged when they were washed that morning, so surveillance tapes of the dealership lots covering the time between the washing of the vehicles and the discovery of the damage were reviewed. On the videotapes, defendant was the only person seen walking between rows of cars in the four areas where the scratch damage was found on vehicles.
Defendant denied scratching the cars, telling Officer Galindo that she was shopping for a car for her daughter. The repairs cost $11,858.30.
Defendant was charged with one count of vandalism. (Pen. Code, § 594, subd.(b)(1).) After a jury trial, she was convicted of the charge and placed on five years formal probation. She appealed.
DISCUSSION
Counsel has filed a brief 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 defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but she has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error. By way of Anders issues, defendant has asked us to review (a) the trial courts exclusion of defendants statements made to a police officer, (b) whether imposition of a condition of probation requiring defendant to submit to drug testing was an abuse of discretion, and (c) whether the imposition of a condition of probation requiring defendant to submit to warrantless searches and seizures was improper.
During cross-examination of Officer Galindo, defense counsel elicited information that defendant denied causing the damage and asked if the defendant had mentioned that she had an argument with the controller of the dealership. The evidence was offered pursuant to Evidence Code section 356, which provides, in part, that where part of an act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by the adverse party. (People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 156.)
The prosecutor objected on the ground that the information was hearsay, and the court sustained the objection. The trial court reasoned that Evidence Code section 356 does not apply where the portion of the conversation sought to be admitted relates to a different subject. A trial courts determination of whether evidence is admissible under Evidence Code section 356 is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (People v. Parrish (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 263, 274.) There was no abuse of discretion.
Defendant did not object to the two questioned conditions of probation, and has thus forfeited the right to raise those challenges on appeal. (People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 235; see also, In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 888-889.)
We have completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
GAUT, J.
MILLER, J.