Opinion
H051283
03-20-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIELLE MONICA MARQUEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Monterey County Super. Ct. Nos. 19CR002683; 19CR007265; 19CR007845; 20CR001175; 20CR003654
Wilson, J.
Defendant Danielle Monica Marquez appeals from the court's judgment imposing a previously suspended five-year county jail sentence, after finding Marquez was in violation of her felony probation. Appointed counsel for Marquez filed an opening brief which provides the procedural and factual background of the case but raises no legal challenge to the disposition. Counsel asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Marquez was advised of the right to file written arguments on her own behalf but has not responded. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Marquez, we affirm the judgment.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
The facts of the various offenses involved are taken from the police reports and probation report, which are also quoted by appellate counsel in her opening brief.
1. Original Charges
On February 27, 2019, J.R., a manager at Ulta Beauty in Sand City, noticed that various shelves in multiple aisles were bare of products. After reviewing surveillance footage from the previous day, J.R. observed that a group of three women, along with a young child, were responsible for stealing the merchandise. Officer Segovia of the Sand City Police Department, who investigated the theft, later discovered that three women and a child had also stolen over $3,000 worth of merchandise from Ulta Beauty at Northridge Mall, located in Salinas, on February 26, 2019. After reviewing photos from Northridge Mall, Segovia confirmed that the women involved were the same individuals from the Sand City theft. Further surveillance footage from the Northridge Mall also connected the suspects to a vehicle with a license plate registered to Marquez. Segovia confirmed from Marquez's DMV photo that she was one of the women present in the footage and photos from both incidents.
We refer to the victims in the proceedings by their initials only to protect their personal privacy interests pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(10), (11).
On March 6, 2019, Segovia learned that the same three women had stolen $3,000 worth of clothing from Victoria's Secret at the Del Monte Shopping Center in Monterey.
On March 16, 2019, J.R. informed Segovia that the same three women, including Marquez, had stolen more items from the Sand City Ulta Beauty on March 13, 2019, which Segovia confirmed via video surveillance footage.
On April 29, 2019, Marquez failed to appear in court after being released on her own recognizance in relation to the first Sand City Ulta Beauty theft, and a bench warrant was issued.
B. Procedural Background
1. Original Plea and Sentencing
Based on repeated burglaries, including those described above, the Monterey County District Attorney's Office filed five separate felony complaints against Marquez: (1) complaint filed on March 13, 2019, second degree burglary from Ulta Beauty (Pen. Code, § 459 ; count 1), in Case No. 19CR002683; (2) complaint filed on June 13, 2019, second degree commercial burglary from Victoria's Secret (§ 459; count 1) in Case No. 19CR007265; (3) complaint filed on July 15, 2019, failure to appear while on bail (§ 1320.5; count 1) in Case No. 19CR007845; (4) complaint filed on February 4, 2020, second degree commercial burglary from Ulta Beauty (§ 459; count 1) in Case No. 20CR001175; and (5) complaint filed on April 10, 2020, second degree commercial burglary from Macy's (§ 459; count 1) in Case No. 20CR003654. As to cases number 19CR007845 and 20CR001175, the complaints further alleged that at the time of commission of the offenses, Marquez was released on bail or her own recognizance in case no. 19CR002683 within the meaning of section 12022.1, subdivision (b).
Undesignated references are to the Penal Code.
On November 29, 2022, Marquez entered a plea of no contest to the charges in all five cases. Marquez also admitted to the allegation in case no. 20CR001175 that she was on release on bail or her own recognizance at the time of the offense. In exchange for her plea, Marquez agreed to be placed on probation, and execution of the maximum sentence for each charge was suspended during the pendency of her probation.
On January 26, 2023, Marquez appeared for sentencing. The court imposed the following sentences, with execution of the sentences suspended (ESS), as follows: (1) the upper term of three years in prison in case no. 19CR002683; (2) the upper term of three years in prison in case no. 19CR007265; (3) the upper term of three years in prison in case no. 19CR007845; (4) the upper term of three years in prison, with a consecutive term of two years in prison for the section 12022.1, subdivision (b) enhancement, in case no. 20CR001175; and (5) the upper term of three years in prison in case no. 20CR003654. The court also struck the section 12022.1, subdivision (b) enhancement in case no. 19CR007845.
The court placed Marquez on two years of formal probation and ordered her to serve a total of 364 days in county jail. On each case, the court also imposed a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)(2)), an additional $300 restitution fine, suspended unless probation was revoked and not reinstated (§ 1202.4, subd. (b).), a $41 local crime prevention fee (§ 1202.5), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and victim restitution.
Finally, the parties and the court noted that in the event Marquez violated probation, the sentences imposed on each case would run concurrent to the maximum sentence she would serve, which was five years.
2. Violation of Probation
a. Underlying Facts
On March 29, 2023, victim D.B. and her son were at a laundromat in Fresno. Marquez and a male companion entered the laundromat and made small talk with D.B., then left. About 45 minutes later, D.B. heard Marquez and her companion arguing and yelling as they walked back into the laundromat. When D.B. asked them to "take it outside" because D.B.'s son was present, Marquez accused her of" 'get[ting] in [Marquez's] business'" and swung at D.B. with a closed fist. Although D.B. leaned back, Marquez's fist touched D.B.'s nose, which offended D.B. Marquez's companion grabbed Marquez, told her to stop, and took her outside, where they continued arguing and "wrestling."
b. Court Proceedings
On April 3, 2023, the Monterey County Probation Office filed a Notice of Violation of Probation in all five cases based on Marquez's arrest in Fresno County for battery (§ 242) on March 29, 2023.
On May 4, 2023, following a contested hearing where D.B. was the sole witness, the court found Marquez to be in violation of probation and continued the matter for sentencing.
On August 10, 2023, Marquez appeared before the court for sentencing. At the hearing, Marquez's counsel requested that Marquez be given "another chance" prior to imposition of the suspended sentences, noting that Marquez was dealing with significant trauma as a victim of child sex trafficking, as well as unresolved addiction issues. Counsel asked that Marquez be allowed to connect with various organizations that would allow her to treat her underlying issues and become a safe member of the community. In response, the prosecution argued that Marquez had already received "a huge chance" from ESS and still continued to engage in criminal activity. The prosecution also noted that Marquez's claim that she had been drinking at the time of the assault on D.B. only served to demonstrate that Marquez was not a suitable candidate for probation or ESS.
In making its final decision, the court noted the history of Marquez's case, including but not limited to the number of thefts committed in a short period of time, Marquez's commission of a new crime one month before entering her plea, and her violation of probation only 63 days after she was originally sentenced. Based on these factors, the court revoked probation and imposed the suspended sentences on all five cases, with Marquez serving a total of five years on case no. 20CR001175, and three-year concurrent terms on each of the four remaining cases. The court ordered that Marquez's sentence would be served in county jail pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h).
On August 11, 2023, Marquez filed a notice of appeal but did not seek a certificate of probable cause.
II. Discussion
Pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record. We find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Marquez.
III. Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Greenwood, P. J., Bamattre-Manoukian, J.