P. v. Broyles
Filed 7/19/13 P. v. Broyles CA2/8
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
EIGHT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
FERIAL BROYLES,
Defendant and Appellant.
B243056
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. BA 356775)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, William N. Sterling, Judge. Affirmed.
Jolene
Larimore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * * * *
Ferial Broyles appeals from a judgment of conviction
after pleading guilty to one count of grand
theft. The trial court suspended
imposition of appellant’s sentence and ordered probation for five years. After a contested restitution hearing, the
court ordered appellant to pay restitution in the total amount of
$80,252.43. We ordered this appeal was
limited to sentencing and other noncertificate issues. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), appellant’s counsel filed an opening brief requesting that
this court review the record and determine whether any arguable issues exist on
appeal. We have reviewed the entire
record and find no arguable issue. We
affirm.
As required
by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124, we provide a brief
description of the facts and procedural history of the case.
Appellant
was charged in a felony complaint with (1) one count of conspiracy to commit
grand theft and welfare fraud, (2) two counts of grand theft of personal
property, (3) one count of false statements to receive health care, (4) one
count of perjury in the application for a driver’s license, (5) two counts of
perjury in the application for an identification card, (6) four counts of
perjury by declaration, and (7) seven counts of perjury by false application
for aid. Appellant pled guilty to one
count of grand theft of personal property.
The count to which she pled guilty alleged she had taken $35,654 in
childcare funds from the state of California
and the County of Los
Angeles between August 2001 and May 2006. Appellant entered a
could be liable for restitution as to all dismissed counts. (People v. Goulart (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d
71, 80.)
The court
suspended imposition of appellant’s sentence, placed her on probation for five
years, and ordered restitution to be determined. The court later held a contested
following evidence was adduced.
Appellant had been using two social security numbers under slightly
different names. Under one name and
number, she was receiving SSI
name="_ftnref2" title="">[2] benefits.
Under the other name and number, she had reported spousal income and
income from wages. This income would
have reduced the SSI benefits she was receiving, had it been reported
accurately. The Social Security
Administration determined, based on the unreported income, it had overpaid her
SSI benefits in the amount of $44,598.43 between 2000 and 2006.
The
evidence was that the Department of
Public Social Services (DPSS) had overpaid appellant $36,100.58 in
childcare funds (which was slightly more than the $35,654 to which she pled
guilty of taking). Appellant’s daughter,
Nesreen Megrisi,
title="">[3] reported appellant was her childcare provider,
and the childcare funds were paid to appellant on this basis. DPSS’s investigation determined appellant had
committed childcare fraud because she was disabled during the period she
received funds, and she was not eligible for receiving childcare funds if she
was disabled.
The court
ordered appellant to pay restitution in the amount of $44,598.43 to the Social
Security Administration and $35,654 to DPSS, for a total of $80,252.43.
DISCUSSION
We
appointed counsel to represent
appellant on this appeal. After review
of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief
asking this court to review the record independently pursuant to Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d at page 441. On May 1, 2013, we advised appellant she had
30 days within which to submit any contentions or issues that she wished us to
consider. Appellant did not file a
supplemental brief.
We have
examined the entire record. We are
satisfied no arguable issues exist and appellant’s counsel has fully satisfied
her responsibilities under Wende.
(Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 279-284; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at
p. 441; see also People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 123-124.)
The judgment is affirmed.
FLIER,
J.
WE CONCUR:
BIGELOW, P. J.
RUBIN, J.
title="">[2] Supplemental
security income.
