Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 07F04849
RAYE, J.This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant Roseline S. Govind and codefendants Arlon Carroll and Dion McCurry were charged with several offenses committed against N.L. Carroll entered into a plea agreement whereby he pled no contest to robbery in exchange for his truthful testimony at the trial of his codefendants. The trial, which was conducted before separate juries, resulted in defendant’s convictions of first degree burglary, first degree robbery, and auto theft.
Defendant was sentenced to the middle term of six years for the robbery, four years for the burglary, and two years for the auto theft, with the punishment for the latter two offenses stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. The court imposed two restitution fines of $1,000 in accordance with Penal Code sections 1202.4, subdivision (a) and 1202.45, and directed the probation department to reevaluate its recommendation for victim restitution and to show supporting evidence.
FACTS
N.L. and defendant were living together in N.L.’s condominium in a romantic relationship; however, the relationship had severely deteriorated due to defendant’s jealousy regarding N.L.’s contacts with male friends. Eventually, N.L. gave defendant a 30-day notice to leave, but she just threw it away and ignored it.
In March of 2007 defendant initiated a discussion with Arlon Carroll about her troubles with N.L., stating that N.L. was trying to take defendant’s home and that she wanted N.L.’s arms and legs broken in revenge. A plan was devised whereby Carroll and his uncle, codefendant McCurry, would gain entry to the residence and tie up both N.L. and defendant, the latter so that it would not look like she was involved in the crime. The payoff to Carroll would be N.L.’s car and $500; the money would be in a change box under defendant’s bed.
On March 29, 2007, defendant picked up Carroll and McCurry and let them out near the condominium. Carroll and McCurry entered through a window that defendant left open in the garage.
N.L. was upstairs working on her computer and defendant had gone to bed, when N.L.’s dog began to bark. N.L. went downstairs to investigate, and when she stepped into the garage, Carroll grabbed her and put his hands over her eyes and mouth. Carroll put duct tape on N.L.’s wrists, mouth, and eyes. To stop N.L. from struggling, Carroll sat on her. At this point, defendant also hit and kicked N.L.
McCurry obtained the change box and he and Carroll went into the garage, where Carroll, using a key to N.L.’s car given to him by defendant, started the car up and the two left. Defendant helped N.L. get out of the tape and find her cell phone to call the police; however, the cell phone was missing, as were N.L.’s purse and her credit cards. N.L. called the police on defendant’s cell phone.
Use of the cell phone and the credit cards eventually led police investigators to arrest Carroll and search his residence, where items belonging to N.L. were found.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: SCOTLAND, P. J., HULL, J.