P. v. Cabanero

P. v. Cabanero

Filed 11/03/08 P. v. Cabanero CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EMMANUEL CABANERO, Defendant and Appellant.

A120637 (San FranciscoCity & County Super. Ct. No. 202291)

Pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant Emmanuel Cabanero pled guilty to residential burglary. (Pen. Code,  459.)^[1] Counsel has advised that examination of the record reveals no arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel has informed defendant that he may personally file a supplemental opening brief, but defendant has not done so. We conclude there are no arguable issues and affirm.

BACKGROUND^[2]

On May 10, 2006, Charita Repollo, the victim, noticed that her front gate lock was damaged and appeared to have been forced open. When she returned later that day, she saw three males running out of the house. She recognized defendant and one of the other men, Marlon Roa, as being regular patrons at her restaurant. The victim discovered that her jewelry drawer was open and a large amount of jewelry was missing.

DISCUSSION

Conflict counsel was appointed for defendant and defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing. At the July 3, 2007 change of plea hearing, defendant pled guilty pursuant to the plea bargain. He was properly admonished regarding the constitutional rights he was waiving in pleading guilty, and the parties stipulated that the police report formed the factual basis of defendants plea. Defendant was informed that pursuant to his plea, imposition of sentence would be suspended, he would be placed on three years probation, he would serve time in jail equal to time already served, and be subject to standard probation conditions, fines and fees.

At the July 27, 2007 sentencing hearing the court properly suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three years probation with standard conditions. He was ordered to pay a $200 victims restitution fine (Pen. Code,  1202.4), a $200 probation violation fine, a $20 court security fee, a $125 booking fee (Gov. Code,  29550.3), a $150 presentence investigation fee, probation supervision costs up to $50 per month, and a $200 restitution fine to be stayed unless probation is revoked (Pen. Code,  1202.45).

A restitution hearing was set for August 23, 2007, and ultimately continued to December 10. The parties agreed to submit the evidence portion of the hearing on Roas January restitution hearing transcript and a police department Additional Loss Report Form Supplemental Incident Report. The court properly adopted the credibility findings of the court at Roas restitution hearing, ordered restitution of $27,475 and 10 percent interest from the July 27, 2007 date of sentencing.

Defendant was adequately represented at all stages of the proceedings and there are no arguable issues.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

SIMONS, Acting P.J.

We concur.

NEEDHAM, J.

DONDERO, J.^*

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^[1] As part of the negotiated disposition, the prosecution struck the three strikes law allegation (Pen. Code,  667.5, subd. (c)(21)) that during commission of the burglary, another person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residence.

^[2] The background facts are taken from the probation report.

^* Judge of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.