Opinion
D059347 Super. Ct. No. FSB052235
10-19-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ORALIA HIDALGO, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Rodney A. Cortez, Judge. Affirmed.
Oralia Hidalgo was convicted of forgery and related crimes in connection with a fraudulent real estate transaction. The court sentenced her to five years in prison. The People sought $145,000 in restitution for Marino Morales of Giro Investments (Morales), the buyer of the real property. Hidalgo appeals the January 28, 2011, order that she pay Morales $140,000 in restitution (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f)). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Morales paid Hidalgo $125,000 for the subject property and spent between $10,000 and $15,000 on repairs to the property. The title insurance company paid Morales's claim for $125,000. Morales then purchased the property from the rightful owner for $110,000 and sold the property, at a profit, for $210,000. Morales incurred about $5,000 in attorneys' fees. The court's $140,000 restitution award included $125,000 for the original purchase price, $10,000 for building supplies and $5,000 for attorneys' fees.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel lists, as possible but not arguable issues, (1) whether the court abused its discretion by denying Hidalgo's Marsden motion (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118) and (2) whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by introducing evidence against Hidalgo.
We granted Hidalgo permission to file a brief on her own behalf. She has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Hidalgo has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
O'ROURKE, J. WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.