Opinion
E081865
11-21-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RACHEL KOZLOWSKI, Defendant and Appellant.
Arthur B. Martin and Anna M. Jauregui-Law, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FWV23001855. Richard V. Peel, Judge, and Arthur B. Benner II, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Arthur B. Martin and Anna M. Jauregui-Law, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
CODRINGTON Acting P. J.
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant and appellant Rachel Kozlowski pled no contest to driving or taking a vehicle without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). In exchange, the remaining charge and enhancement allegation were dismissed, and defendant was placed on supervised probation for a period of two years on various terms and conditions of probation. Defendant appeals from an order after judgment. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A summary of the factual background is taken from the probation report.
On May 13, 2023, a Fontana police officer was dispatched to a business area in the City of Bloomington in reference to a possible stolen vehicle. As the officer arrived on scene, he saw a white Ford F250 utility truck in the driveway of a nearby business. After the officer confirmed the truck had been stolen out of the City of Colton and rendered the vehicle safe and clear, the officer made contact with the witness at the location.
The witness, who was a security guard, reported that she was conducting her regular patrol when she saw the truck pull into the driveway of the business she was securing. The witness observed defendant, who was wearing a purple bathing suit, exit the truck after she hotwired the vehicle. When the witness informed defendant that what she was doing was illegal, defendant told the witness to mind her own business and to help her instead of taking pictures of her. The witness took photographs of the incident.
Defendant had fled the scene on foot by the time the officer arrived. The officer eventually located defendant walking down the street from the incident and placed defendant under arrest. Defendant was positively identified as the suspect by the witness.
On June 1, 2023, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant with driving or taking a vehicle without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1) and receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d; count 2). The information also alleged that defendant had suffered a prior vehicle theft conviction (Pen. Code, § 666.5) in October 2022 in Los Angeles County.
The following day, on June 2, 2023, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant withdrew her not guilty plea and pled no contest to count 1. Defense counsel did not join in defendant's no contest plea. In return, defendant was promised the remaining allegations would be dismissed, the People would not prosecute an unrelated matter, and she would be granted formal supervised probation for a period of two years on various terms and conditions of probation.
Prior to pleading guilty, defendant executed a felony plea form under Penal Code section 859a. The trial court went over the plea form with defendant at the change of plea hearing held June 2, 2023. In response to the trial court's query, defendant indicated that she had gone over the plea form with her attorney and that she understood all of her legal rights and consequences of her plea. The trial court also informed defendant of her constitutional rights, the consequences of pleading no contest, and the negotiated plea agreement. Defendant indicated to the court that she understood her rights, consequences of the plea, and the plea agreement. Defendant stated that she had no questions for the court and that she was entering into the plea agreement on her own free will. She also acknowledged to the court that she had enough time to speak with her attorney. Defendant's counsel did not join with defendant in the plea agreement. The People accepted defendant's plea and stipulated the court could consider the police reports for the factual basis for the plea. After directly examining defendant, the court found that defendant understood her plea form, the nature of the charges, the consequences of pleading no contest, and her constitutional rights. The court also found that defendant had knowingly, intelligently, freely, and voluntarily waived her constitutional rights, and that there was a factual basis for her plea. Defendant was thereafter immediately placed on formal supervised probation for a period of two years in accordance with her plea agreement on various terms and conditions of probation. Defendant received 42 days' credit for time served, and the remaining allegations were dismissed. The court suspended payment of all fines and fees pending a showing of defendant's ability to pay. Defendant timely appealed.
III. DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, this court appointed counsel to represent her. Upon examination of the record, 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 issue of whether defendant was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but she has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
IV. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: FIELDS J. RAPHAEL J.