legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Smith

P. v. Smith
12:30:2012






P








P. v. Smith















Filed 7/12/12 P. v.
Smith 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

(Shasta)

----


>






THE PEOPLE,



Plaintiff and Respondent,



v.



LAURA ANN SMITH,



Defendant and Appellant.




C069660



(Super.
Ct. No. 10F8712)












Defendant Laura
Ann Smith was found guilty by a jury of animal
cruelty
. The trial court placed her
on probation on the condition she serve 365 days in county jail.

Defendant’s
ensuing appeal is subject to the principles of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (>Wende) and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124. In accordance with the latter, we will
provide a summary of the offense and the proceedings in the trial court.

Defendant and Eunice Clark were
neighbors. Both women owned two
dogs. One of Clark’s dogs was a six- to seven-pound
Chihuahua-Miniature Pinscher mix named Roxy.
Despite Clark’s efforts, Roxy would escape from
her yard once or twice every couple of weeks.
Three or four of those times, Clark
found Roxy playing with defendant’s dogs in defendant’s yard. Defendant had never said anything to Clark, but had complained to Clark’s son about Roxy coming into her
yard.

On November 2, 2010, unbeknownst to Clark, someone left her front gate open
and Roxy escaped from Clark’s yard and wandered into
defendant’s yard. Clark’s daughter, Sunday Nelson, was in
the bathroom at Clark’s house when she heard screaming
and cussing outside. She looked out the
window and saw defendant walking towards Roxy.
Defendant was repeatedly yelling, “Come get your fuckin’ dog” and
pointing to Clark’s house. She then saw defendant kick Roxy on its
side. The dog flew up in the air and
then slid and just lay there. Defendant
then walked over and stomped on the dog, which was lying on its side. Roxy let out a loud yelp.

Nelson ran into the living room, yelled to
her mother “Go get your dog. She just
hurt your dog” and ran out the door and confronted defendant. When Clark got to defendant’s yard, Nelson was
screaming at defendant. Clark did not see Roxy and apologized to
defendant, who yelled, “Tell Roxy you’re sorry.
Tell your dog you’re sorry.”
Defendant threatened to kill Roxy the next time she caught the dog in
the yard and accused Clark of being a bad dog owner.

Clark
found Roxy on defendant’s porch. When
she picked the dog up, she could tell the dog was hurt. Clark and Nelson immediately took Roxy to the
veterinary clinic but, despite the veterinarian’s emergency measures, Roxy died
shortly thereafter. A different
veterinarian performed a necropsy on Roxy several weeks later. The cause of death was determined to be
severe blunt force trauma to the chest area.
The injury was consistent with someone stepping forcefully and
deliberately on the dog.

A three-day jury trial commenced on September
27, 2011,
after which the jury found defendant guilty of felony cruelty to an
animal. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd.
(a).) On October 28, 2011, the trial
court placed defendant on formal probation for three years on the condition she
serve 365 days in county jail. The trial
court also imposed various fines and fees, including a $600 restitution fine, a
suspended $600 probation revocation fine, and a $200 base fine. Defendant was credited with 31 actual days
and 14 conduct days, for a total of 45 days of presentence href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">custody credit.

Defendant appeals. We appointed appellate counsel for
defendant. Counsel has filed an href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">opening brief setting forth the facts of
the case and asking us to review the record to determine whether there are any
arguable issues on appeal. (>Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Counsel has also advised defendant 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
not received any 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.







BUTZ , J.







We concur:








NICHOLSON
, Acting P. J.







MAURO , J.









Description Defendant Laura Ann Smith was found guilty by a jury of animal cruelty. The trial court placed her on probation on the condition she serve 365 days in county jail.
Defendant’s ensuing appeal is subject to the principles of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124. In accordance with the latter, we will provide a summary of the offense and the proceedings in the trial court.
Defendant and Eunice Clark were neighbors. Both women owned two dogs. One of Clark’s dogs was a six- to seven-pound Chihuahua-Miniature Pinscher mix named Roxy. Despite Clark’s efforts, Roxy would escape from her yard once or twice every couple of weeks. Three or four of those times, Clark found Roxy playing with defendant’s dogs in defendant’s yard. Defendant had never said anything to Clark, but had complained to Clark’s son about Roxy coming into her yard.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2026 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2026 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale