P. v. Saracino
Filed 1/27/09 P. v. Saracino 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Tehama)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONNA MARIE SARACINO, Defendant and Appellant. | C057182 (Super. Ct. No. NCR71712) |
Donna Marie Saracino was charged with 14 theft-related counts. Pursuant to a negotiated settlement, she pleaded guilty to felony identity theft (Pen. Code, 530.5, subd. (a))[1]and felony theft ( 484e, subd. (d)). The remaining 12 counts were dismissed with a Harveywaiver.[2]
Sentenced to state prison for two years eight months, defendant appeals contending the trial court abused its discretion by not granting her probation. We reject the claim.
DISCUSSION
Defendant acknowledges that because she had two prior felony convictions she was not eligible for a grant of probation absent the courts finding there were unusual circumstances for such a grant. ( 1203, subd. (e)(4).) However, she argues that the offenses were not as serious as most offenses in that they were nonviolent property crimes involving only a small amount of property loss, i.e., $450.11 if she lost at trial on all 14 counts. She also says her crimes were not as serious as her past offenses which were five- and nine-years-old. She concludes the court abused its discretion in failing to find unusual circumstances that would override the statutory limitation. The argument is not persuasive.
We review a defendants challenge to a trial courts finding that there are no unusual circumstances which permit a grant of probation under the standard of abuse of discretion. (People v. Superior Court (Du) (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 822, 831-832.) Pursuant to that standard, we reverse the trial courts determination only if it is arbitrary, capricious or exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances. (People v. Warner (1978) 20 Cal.3d 678, 683.)
In addition to defendants two prior felony convictions (1994, 2001) she also has three driving under the influence convictions (1989, 1990, 1995). As to the instant case, a search of defendants residence disclosed paperwork belonging to numerous individuals, including a check, order forms and invoices containing names, addresses, telephone numbers, credit card numbers, expiration dates of the credit cards and three-digit key numbers located on the back of the credit cards. Clearly, defendant had set up a sophisticated scheme for defrauding businesses and individuals and there is nothing to show that she had any intention of abandoning her criminal ways.
Consequently, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to find there were unusual circumstances for the granting of probation.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MORRISON , J.
We concur:
SIMS , Acting P. J.
RAYE , J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Hereafter, references to undesignated sections are to the Penal Code.
[2]People v. Harvey(1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
