P. v. Barboza
Filed 3/21/13 P. v. Barboza CA5
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
CAROLINE
BARBOZA,
Defendant and
Appellant.
F064863
(Super.
Ct. No. F10905242)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of
County. Houry Sanderson, Judge.
Deborah
Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office
of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
Pursuant to
a plea agreement, appellant, Caroline Barboza, pled no contest to individual
counts of welfare fraud (Welf. &
Inst. Code, § 10980, subd. (c)(2)) and perjury (Pen. Code, § 118, subd.
(a)). In keeping with the plea agreement,
the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on five years’
probation, one of the terms of which was that she serve one day in county jail
and 89 days in the adult offender work program.
The court
denied appellant’s request for a certificate
of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5).
Appellant’s appointed appellate
counsel has filed an opening brief
which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no
issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit
additional briefing.
FACTS
The report
of the probation officer states the following:
During the period of November 1, 2005, to December 31, 2006, appellant
failed to accurately report to the Fresno County Department of Social Services
income she received from employment.
This resulted in “overpayments of public assistance funds†in the total
amount of $5,809.
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the
record, we have concluded that no reasonably
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
name="_ftn1" title="">* Before
Kane, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., and Franson, J.
