From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Stidham

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Jan 30, 2009
No. E045856 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2009)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAMELA SUE STIDHAM, Defendant and Appellant. E045856 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Second Division January 30, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FVI702341. Annemarie G. Pace, Judge.

Neil Auwarter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

RAMIREZ, P.J.

Statement of the Case

Defendant was charged by felony complaint filed by the San Bernardino County District Attorney with perjury by false application for aid (Pen. Code, § 118, count 1) and obtaining aid by misrepresentation (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 10980, subd. (c)(2), count 2).

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

Pursuant to section 859a, defendant, represented by counsel, pled nolo contendere to count two, in exchange for a formal grant of probation which included a commitment in the local jail not to exceed 120 days. In accordance with the negotiated disposition, the district attorney agreed not to file charges in another related case. The agreement further stipulated defendant would pay victim restitution of $4,401.

On May 9, 2008, and prior to formal sentencing, defendant, represented by new counsel, moved to withdraw her plea; the motion was denied. Thereafter, defendant’s request to be placed on a formal grant of probation was granted and the terms and conditions included both local jail time and restitution to the victim.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the sentence or other matters not affecting the validity of the plea.

Statement of Facts

According to the probation report, defendant was renting a residence in federally subsidized housing, but failed to disclose to the Housing Authority that her brother, a parolee, was living in the residence for several months.

Defendant appealed, and upon her request this court appointed counsel to represent her. 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 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which she has not done.

We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: McKINSTER, J., MILLER, J.


Summaries of

People v. Stidham

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Jan 30, 2009
No. E045856 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2009)
Case details for

People v. Stidham

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAMELA SUE STIDHAM, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division

Date published: Jan 30, 2009

Citations

No. E045856 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2009)