P. v. Gilder
Filed 11/24/09 P. v. Gilder CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Butte)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARVA VAN GILDER, Defendant and Appellant. | C061191 (Super. Ct. No. CM027248) |
By a complaint deemed an information, defendant Marva Van Gilder was charged with arson of an inhabited structure (count 1; Pen. Code, 451, subd. (b)),[1] defrauding an insurer (count 2; 548, subd. (a)), and filing a false income tax return (count 3; Rev. & Tax. Code, 19706).
Defendant thereafter entered a no contest plea to count 2 pursuant to People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595 and North Carolina v.Alford (1970) 400 U.S. 25 [27 L.Ed.2d 162] in return for the dismissal of the other counts and a promise of no immediate state prison. The parties stipulated to the following factual basis for the plea: On February 14, 2005, . . . a fire was started within [defendants] house. The fire was incendiary in nature. It was for the purposes [sic] of defrauding the insurance company.[2]
Defendant subsequently indicated that she wished to move to withdraw her plea. Deeming this request to fall under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, the trial court held a Marsden hearing. Because trial counsel indicated that he did not think there were grounds to withdraw the plea and defendant stated she could work with counsel, the trial court directed counsel to work with defendant on a statement in mitigation.
The trial court thereafter suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for 36 months (including 120 days in jail and 200 hours of community service).
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
RAYE , J.
We concur:
NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.
BUTZ , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] According to the probation report, the fire and the resulting false claim on defendants insurance company stemmed from defendants indebtedness due to a gambling addiction. A financial profile of defendant uncovered $157,000 in unexplained deposits to her bank account from 2003 to 2005, which she allegedly admitted were derived from gambling winnings that she did not report on her tax returns.
