Filed 6/30/26 P. v. Rosiles CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
THE PEOPLE, B349239
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. Nos. NA121312,
v. XSONA121312)
KARINA ROSILES,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Richard M. Goul, Judge. Affirmed.
Christina Vanarelli, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________________________
Karina Rosiles threw gasoline on an employee of a store
she was trying to rob. She pleaded no contest to second degree
robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and stipulated to a factual basis for
the plea. The court accepted the plea, found Rosiles guilty as
charged, dismissed a count of assault with caustic chemicals
(Pen. Code, § 244), sentenced Rosiles to a suspended term
of five years in state prison, and placed her on three years of
probation.
After Rosiles violated probation several times, the court
revoked probation and held a contested hearing. The court found
Rosiles was in violation of her probation, terminated probation,
and imposed the previously suspended five-year prison sentence,
with 89 days of credit based on 45 days actual plus 44 days for
good time/work time.
Rosiles appealed.
We appointed counsel to represent Rosiles. After
examining the record, counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) raising no issues and asking
us to independently review the record. We sent letters to Rosiles
and appointed counsel, directing counsel to forward the appellate
record and brief to Rosiles and advising her she had 30 days to
personally submit any contentions or issues she wished us to
consider. Rosiles did not respond.
After reviewing the record, we conclude appellate counsel
complied with the responsibilities set forth in Wende and People
v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 and find there are no arguable
issues.
2
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
We concur:
BENDIX, J.
M. KIM, J.
3