P. v. Franco
Filed 5/27/10 P. v. Franco 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CHERYL SUE BURMEISTER FRANCO, Defendant and Appellant. | H034659 (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. F14625) |
Defendant Cheryl Sue Burmeister Franco pleaded no contest to one misdemeanor count of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)). In exchange for her plea, the district attorney reduced the original charges from a felony to a misdemeanor; struck a domestic violence enhancement, (Pen. Code, 12022.7, subd. (e)), and dismissed an additional count of inflicting corporal injury to a former cohabitant. (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a).)[1] The trial court placed the defendant on probation for a period of three years on the condition she serve 30 days in the county jail. The court recommended that the time be completed on work release, and ordered defendant to complete a 52 week private counseling program.
Despite initially stating that the victim was not seeking restitution, the district attorney subsequently moved for restitution in the amount of $16,122.88. Defendant filed a motion challenging the restitution request on the grounds that it would violate the plea bargain and was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The trial court ruled that defendant could either accept the restitution or withdraw her plea. Thereafter, defendant withdrew her motion and accepted the restitution order. Defendant timely appealed from the order setting restitution in the amount of $12,295.10.
On appeal, appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of her right to submit written argument in her own behalf within 30 days. Thirty days has elapsed and we have received nothing from the defendant. Pursuant to our obligation as set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record on appeal. We conclude that there are no arguable issues. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
_____________________________________
rushing, P.J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________________
PREMO, J.
_________________________________
DUFFY, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Because the record contains neither a preliminary examination transcript nor a probation officers report, the facts of the underlying offense are unknown.
