legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Brown

P. v. Brown
09/27/07



P. v. Brown



Filed 9/26/07 P. v. Brown CA6



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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



SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT



THE PEOPLE,



Plaintiff and Respondent,



v.



TINA LATHAM BROWN,



Defendant and Appellant.



H031043



(Santa Clara County



Super. Ct. No. CC623608)



On March 15, 2006, defendant Tina Latham Brown was charged with three felonies: presenting a false or fraudulent insurance claim (Pen. Code 550, subd. (a)(1)),[1]presenting a false motor vehicle claim ( 550, subd. (a)(4)), and perjury ( 118).



On November 16, 2006, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the charges were amended to add a felony violation of section 550, subdivision (b)(1) (presenting a written or oral statement known to be false or misleading in regards to a claim for insurance benefits) and defendant entered a plea of no contest to this charge. The other felony charges were dismissed; however, as a part of the disposition, defendant agreed that the court could order full restitution arising from the dismissed perjury count.



On December 12, 2006, defendant was sentenced pursuant to this agreement to three years of formal probation, a jail sentence of four months (with total credits of six days), restitution to Trading Financial of $3,016.28, restitution of $17,539.78 to State Farm Insurance Company, and other terms and conditions.



Defendant filed a timely appeal.



STATEMENT OF FACTS



The charges arose out of the following facts:[2] On August 22, 2004, defendant reported her automobile stolen in San Francisco. Five days later, the extensively damaged car was recovered by law enforcement in Alameda County. Investigation revealed that the vehicle had to have been driven to the recovery location by someone with a key because the screwdriver found inserted into the ignition lock could not have started the engine; in fact the insertion of the screwdriver prevented ignition. Further investigation established that although she claimed there was no lien holder, she in fact owed over $8,500 to a finance company lien holder to which she had not made a payment for three years, she had not kept the registration current, she had approximately 30 outstanding parking tickets on the vehicle over the previous two years, she had made a prior vandalism claim on the car, and she had a history of financial problems.



DISCUSSION



We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We have notified defendant of her right to submit written argument in her own behalf within 30 days. The period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant.



Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and we have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.)



DISPOSITION



The judgment is affirmed.



__________________________________________



McAdams, J.



WE CONCUR:



________________________________



Mihara, Acting P.J.



________________________________



Duffy, J.



Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.



Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line attorney.







[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.



[2] Since no trial or hearing took place, the facts are taken from the probation report.





Description On March 15, 2006, defendant Tina Latham Brown was charged with three felonies: presenting a false or fraudulent insurance claim (Pen. Code 550, subd. (a)(1)),[1]presenting a false motor vehicle claim ( 550, subd. (a)(4)), and perjury ( 118). Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and we have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.) The judgment is affirmed.

Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2020 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2020 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale