Opinion
D070130
01-09-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. YADIRA GUTIERREZ ROBLEDO, Defendant and Appellant.
Allison L. Ehlert, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SCD262559) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura W. Halgren, Judge. Affirmed. Allison L. Ehlert, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Yadira Gutierrez Robledo pleaded guilty to grand theft from her employers (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (b)(3)). The court sentenced Robledo to 120 days custody in a work furlough program and otherwise stayed sentence imposition for five years of formal probation. At a later restitution hearing, the court ordered Robledo to pay $54,550 to her former employers as the victims of her crime. Robledo appeals the restitution order.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
Robledo's appointed appellate counsel filed a brief requesting we independently review the record for error. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.) Having done so and having identified no reasonably arguable appellate issues, we affirm the order.
BACKGROUND
Robledo worked for Victor Moore and Dominic Sabatini at their apartment complex. She answered phone calls and collected rent from tenants. She was responsible for depositing the rent she collected into a company bank account. In exchange for her services, she lived rent-free in one of the apartment units.
Moore and Sabatini noticed they were not receiving rent from certain apartments in November 2014 and started eviction proceedings in January 2015. They discovered all of the tenants had receipts showing they paid their rent by cash or money order, but Moore and Sabatini did not receive the money. No evictions occurred.
The amount of rent not received for two apartment buildings totaled $54,550. Robledo was solely responsible for collecting the rent.
Defense counsel introduced evidence that money orders actually deposited into Robledo's personal bank account totaled $12,766.50. He argued the court should consider this the accurate amount obtained by Robledo for purposes of the restitution order.
The court rejected the defense argument stating, "It is entirely reasonable to conclude and draw an inference that she didn't deposit all the money into her account but rather then cashed it or spent it." The court found the restitution owed to the victims was $54,550.
DISCUSSION
Robledo's appointed appellate counsel filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presented no argument for reversal and instead requested we review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.
To aid our review, and consistent with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744, counsel identified one possible appellate issue: did the trial court abuse its discretion when it ordered Robledo to pay restitution in an amount equal to the lost rent her employers sustained? (§ 1202.4, subd. (f) ["in every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant's conduct, the court shall require that the defendant make restitution to the victim ... in an amount established by court order, based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim or victims or any other showing to the court"]; People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 663 [restitution orders are reviewed for abuse of discretion]; People v. Sy (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 44, 63 [" ' "[T]he court's discretion in setting the amount of restitution is broad, and it may use any rational method of fixing the amount of restitution as long as it is reasonably calculated to make the victim whole" ' "].)
We granted Robledo permission to file a supplemental brief on her own behalf. She did not do so.
As requested by counsel, we reviewed the record for error and did not find any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Robledo has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The restitution order is affirmed.
MCCONNELL, P. J. WE CONCUR: HALLER, J. AARON, J.