Opinion
E055268
09-28-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARY CRUZ GONZALEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Reed Webb, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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. RIF10001420)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. J. Thompson Hanks, Judge. (Retired judge of the Riverside Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Reed Webb, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
On August 19, 2010, an information charged defendant and appellant Mary Cruz Gonzalez with inflicting cruel and inhuman corporal punishment and injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon a child, Jane Doe, under Penal Code section 273d, subdivision (a) (counts 1, 2 & 3); and with inflicting unjustifiable physical pain and mental suffering upon a child, Jane Doe, under section 273a, subdivision (a) (counts 4 & 5). As to count 1, the information further alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on a child under the age of five under section 12022.7, subdivision (d). After a jury trial, on September 28, 2011, the jury returned not guilty verdicts on counts 1 and 3; and the trial court declared a mistrial for the remaining counts on which the jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
On November 7, 2011, defendant entered into a negotiated plea agreement. She pled guilty to count 2 (unlawful corporal punishment), and count 4 (child endangerment). The parties agreed to a sentence of three years four months in state prison. Defendant then waived her rights to a presentencing probation report, and to have the same judicial officer pronounce judgment.
On November 29, 2011, defendant was sentenced to serve in state prison for the low term of two years for count 2, and a consecutive 16 months (one-third the midterm) on the subordinate term for count 4. The court then determined that she had 616 days of presentence custody credits, and awarded an additional 616 days of conduct credits for a total of 1232 days of credit. Since the prison sentence was for approximately 1200 days (40 months x 30 days), which was less than defendant's accrued days of credit, defendant's prison sentence resulted in a "paper commitment" and she was released to parole supervision.
On December 19, 2011, defendant filed a notice of appeal; there was no request for a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In taking defendant's guilty plea, the trial court described the factual basis specific to each count, and defendant admitted to the court that there was a factual basis for entering the guilty plea as to both counts. During defendant's trial, evidence showed that defendant made admissions to a police officer that she had hit her daughter in the back of the head causing the child to go forward and strike the corner of a table. Defendant also admitted striking her daughter's face with her fist on another occasion.
ANALYSIS
After defendant appealed, and upon her request, this court appointed counsel to represent her. 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 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a 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 conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MCKINSTER
Acting P. J.
We concur: MILLER
J.
CODRINGTON
J.