P. v. Cordar
Filed 4/10/07 P. v. Cordar CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WENDY LYNN CORDAR, Defendant and Appellant. | A114760 (Lake County Super. Ct. Nos. CR900257 & CR904872) |
Wendy Lynn Cordar appeals from a judgment revoking probation and imposing sentence after a guilty plea. Her court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, in order to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We find there are none and affirm.
BACKGROUND
Case No. CR900257
The following facts are taken from the police report, which the parties stipulated to be the basis for defendants plea.
On January 13, 2004, defendant set two fires in the home of her mother and grandmother. A neighbor alerted defendants mother that the house was on fire and defendants grandmother was removed to safety in a wheelchair. Defendant, who claimed to have been drinking and not taking her medications for a bipolar disorder at the time, was distraught because she believed her mother was responsible for child protective services personnel having removed her children earlier that day. She exhibited objective symptoms of intoxication when questioned by investigators.
Defendant was charged in count one with arson of an inhabited structure and inhabited property (Pen. Code, 451, subd. (b)),[1]with special allegations that this was a serious offense within the meaning of section 1192.7, subdivision (c) and a violent felony within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (c); in count two with arson of the property of another ( 451, subd. (d)) with a special allegation under section 1192.7; and in count three with attempted arson ( 455). Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to count one and the remaining counts were dismissed. On June 7, 2004, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years subject to various conditions including that she not consume any alcohol or violate any law.
Case No. CR904872
On May 11, 2005, defendant stole a bottle of vodka and several items of food from a grocery store. Store employees took her into custody and she admitted to a police officer that she had entered the store carrying empty food bags and no money, intending to steal the items.
Defendant was charged with second degree burglary ( 459) with a special allegation of a prior serious or violent felony, the 2004 arson conviction. Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to the section 459 violation and the special allegation, and admitted the violation of probation in Case No. CR900257. Charges in three other cases for failure to appear, driving on a suspended license and public intoxication were dismissed.
The court granted a Romero motion to strike the prior serious felony allegation in Case No. CR904872. The court revoked probation and sentenced defendant to the mid-term of five years in the arson case, designated as the principal term. The court sentenced defendant to the mid-term in the burglary case and ordered that it run concurrent with the base term, for a total sentence of five years and eight months.
Defendant received credits for 393 days actually served and 58 days of conduct credit, for a total of 451 days presentence credits.[2] The court imposed two restitution fines of $1,100 pursuant to sections 1202.4 and 1202.45, the latter suspended unless parole is revoked; and required defendant to submit saliva and fingerprint samples under section 296, subdivision (a)(1) and register as an arson offender under section 457.1.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Defense counsel represents that he advised defendant of her right to submit supplemental written argument on her own behalf. She has not done so. Defendant has also been advised of her right to request that counsel be relieved and another attorney appointed. This court has reviewed the entire record on appeal. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Siggins, J.
We concur:
_________________________
Parrilli, Acting P.J.
_________________________
Pollak, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] The June 29, 2006, abstract of judgment lists an additional 8 actual days and 2 days of local conduct for a total of 461 days.
