P. v. Gomez
Filed 9/11/13 P. v. Gomez CA2/5
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
SHEILA GOMEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
B246362
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. SA081178)
APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court
of
County, Katherine Mader, Judge. Affirmed.
Marta I.
Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant, Sheila Gomez, appeals
from a January 18, 2013
order partially denying her motion for return of property. We affirm the order.
On June 28, 2012, defendant was charged with six counts: second degree commercial burglary of Best Buy
in El Segundo (Pen. Code, § 459); petty theft of Best Buy in El Segundo (Pen.
Code, § 484, subd. (a)); receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd.
(a); possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine (Health & Safety
Code, § 11377, subd. (a); second degree commercial burglary of Best Buy in Hawthorne
(Pen. Code, § 459); and petty theft of Best Buy in Hawthorne
(Pen. Code, § 484, subd. (a)). The
preliminary hearing transcript indicated defendant was involved in a fraudulent
effort to return speakers to a store.
On July 13, 2012, defendant pled no contest to
probation on condition she serve 365 days in jail. Defendant received 36 days of presentence
credit consisting of 18 day in actual custody and 18 days for conduct
credit. In addition, defendant was
ordered to pay a $40 court operations assessment and a $30 criminal conviction assessment.
On November 30, 2012, defendant filed a motion to return
property. On January 18, 2013, the trial court partially
granted defendant’s motion. But the
trial court denied the motion for return of:
a digital memory card; an electronic cable; an accomplice’s satchel and
its contents including diagonal cutting pliers, a folding knife, and a voltage
tester; a duplicate receipt provided by a store employee; a laptop computer not
listed on a store receipt; a paper shredder; and a jump-starter. Defendant filed her notice of appeal on January 18, 2013.
We appointed counsel
to represent defendant on appeal.
After examination of the record, appointed appellate counsel filed an
“Opening Brief†in which no issues were raised.
Instead, appointed appellate counsel requested this court to
independently review the entire record on appeal pursuant to
441. (See (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284.) On June 10,
2013,
we advised defendant that she had 30 days within which to personally submit any
contentions or arguments she wishes us to consider. No response has been received. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied
appointed appellate counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities. No argument exists favorable to defendant on
appeal. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113;
The order partially denying the motion for return of
property is affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
TURNER,
P. J.
We concur:
KRIEGLER,
J.
KUMAR, J.
Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI,
section 6 of the California Constitution.
