Filed 11/19/18 P. v. Arthur CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
NATASHIA ARTHUR,
Defendant and Appellant.
| B289247
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA094059) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Eric C. Taylor, Judge. Affirmed.
Gloria C. Cohen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On July 17, 2017, defendant Natashia Arthur pleaded no contest to one count of misdemeanor vandalism, in violation of Penal Code section 594, subdivision (a). She had been charged with damaging the hood of a Nissan Altima owned by Tara Harper (victim). The court sentenced defendant to three years of probation and ordered her to pay restitution to the victim pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f), in an amount to be determined at a later hearing.
The court conducted a restitution hearing on November 7, 2017, January 31, 2018, March 12, 2018, and March 29, 2019. After considering witness testimony and documents, including an estimate in the amount of $1,475.25, provided by an auto body shop, for the repair of the Nissan Altima, the court concluded that defendant owed $1,475.25 in restitution.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting that we independently review the entire record to determine if there are any arguable issues. On August 1, 2018, we notified defendant that appointed appellate counsel had failed to find any arguable issues and defendant had 30 days within which to independently brief any grounds for appeal, contentions, or arguments she wanted us to consider. We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that defendant’s appointed appellate counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
KIM, J.
We concur:
BAKER, Acting P.J.
MOOR, J.
