Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC804195
Mihara, J.
Defendant Gabrielle Nina Shapiro broke into an apartment leased to Melody Mains and her son Scott Smith. While in the apartment, defendant damaged bedding, clothing, and other property belonging to Mains and Smith when she bled onto these items. Defendant was charged by complaint with felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)) and misdemeanor entering and damaging property in a residence (Pen. Code, § 603). She pleaded no contest to an amended charge of misdemeanor vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a), (b)(2)) and the charged misdemeanor entering and damaging property in a residence. The plea agreement included the provisions that she would receive no further jail time and that she would enter into a Harvey stipulation regarding the amount of restitution since it might exceed $400. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years with various terms and conditions including a seven-day jail sentence as to which she was given credit for seven days served.
People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 (Harvey).
Mains and Smith sought restitution for the property defendant damaged in their apartment. Mains submitted an itemized list of damaged items with a total value of $2,648.22. Smith submitted receipts for items with a total value of $2,410.90. The items that Smith submitted receipts for were duplicative of the items on Mains’s list. Defendant disputed the amounts of their claims and sought a formal restitution hearing.
At the restitution hearing, Mains testified about and produced receipts for damaged items with a total value of $729. She also testified that two additional items with a value of $285 had been damaged. These were items Mains had purchased and given to Smith. Mains testified that the remainder of the items on her list had actually been purchased by Smith. Smith testified that defendant had also scratched a pair of sunglasses that cost him $120. He submitted a receipt for a t-shirt that had cost him $26.78. Although he submitted other receipts, Smith was not entirely clear or certain in his testimony about whether these receipts were for damaged items, replacement items, or “duplicates.” When asked for a “total amount” of losses, Smith responded: “I assume whatever we -- $2,000, $2,400, whatever. I don’t know.” At the end of the hearing, the trial court asked Smith to prepare a list of the items that had been damaged and submit it to the prosecutor by June 3, 2009. Smith did not comply with the court’s request. At a subsequent hearing on June 26, the court decided that it was limited to the “credible” evidence that it had received and ordered restitution of $908.58 to Smith. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal from the restitution order.
Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no issues. Defendant was notified of her right to submit written argument on her own behalf but has failed to avail herself of the opportunity. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal.
The probation order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P. J. Duffy, J.