Opinion
C084476
03-21-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TANESHA ROSS, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 15F04108)
Appointed counsel for defendant Tanesha Ross filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural background of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
In early July 2015, defendant purchased a car stereo from West Coast Car Audio. West Coast Car Audio also installed the stereo for her. About a week later, defendant returned to the shop, in the installation area. She was angry, and claimed her audio system was "all F'd up." Naeem Asghar, the sales manager, checked the system and it appeared to be working. Defendant said someone else had checked it and told her the system was not correctly installed. She demanded her money back and threatened to sue the store. Asghar explained the store did not give refunds, but would replace any defective equipment. He repeatedly offered to fix the problem.
Defendant went to the front of the store, and asked for the owner. Defendant and Asghar argued, and he gave her a business card. Defendant then walked to the center of the store and threatened to get her brother and her gun, and shoot Asghar and "this motherfucking place up." Defendant reached into her purse twice. Asghar was afraid because she threatened specifically to shoot him and appeared to be looking for a gun in her purse.
Defendant then picked up a speaker and threw it into a display case, shattering it. She threw two more speakers. The estimated damage was between $2,100 and $2,300.
Asghar told a coworker, Hamed Sultan, to call the police. Defendant repeatedly restated her intent to shoot the place up with her brother, and even left the store and called someone from the parking lot and told them to come to the store so she could shoot the store up. Sultan heard defendant talking to someone on her phone and telling them to come to the store quickly to shoot them and take care of this. Sultan believed defendant would follow through on her threats and was very frightened. Sultan told the 911 dispatcher defendant had left to get a gun, because she had said she was going to get a gun. Asghar also heard defendant say she was going to get her brother and a gun and shoot "you motherfuckers up." Defendant left the store and did not return. Asghar was afraid to testify, and remained afraid for months after the incident.
A felony complaint deemed an information charged defendant with vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)—count one), and criminal threats (§ 422—count two). A jury found defendant guilty of both counts. The trial court granted defendant's section 17, subdivision (b) motion to reduce her criminal threats' conviction to a misdemeanor. The trial court granted defendant five years of formal probation on count one, conditioned on serving 364 days in jail (with eight days of presentence credit), and a concurrent three years of formal probation on count two. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay $2,155 in victim restitution (§ 1202.4), a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), imposed and stayed a matching probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44), $367.81 main jail booking fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2), $67.03 main jail classification fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2), $80 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), $60 court facility fee (Gov. Code, § 70373), $702 investigation and presentence report costs, and costs of monthly probation supervision and urinalysis testing.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
Defendant appeals. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BUTZ, Acting P. J. We concur: HOCH, J. RENNER, J.