P. v. Yagyayeva
Filed 2/9/09 P. v. Yagyayeva CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ZAREMA SEITMEMETO YAGYAYEVA, Defendant and Appellant. | D053265 (Super. Ct. No. SCD212100) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Stephanie Sontag and Randa Trapp, Judges. Affirmed.
Zarema Seitmemeto Yagyayeva entered negotiated guilty pleas to three counts of grand theft from a person (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (c)) and admitted she had violated her probation in another case. Under the plea bargain, which included a Harvey (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754) waiver, the prosecutor agreed not to oppose probation and to a concurrent sentence in the other case. The trial court stayed imposition of sentence and placed Yagyayeva on three years' formal probation, conditioned on, among other things, she serve 365 days in jail. The court also ordered Yagyayeva to pay $50 per month in restitution to her victims. At a subsequent hearing, the court ordered Yagyayeva to pay one of the victims $42,401 in restitution.
FACTS
Between January 22, 2008 and February 21, 2008, Yagyayeva and others engaged in four drive-by purse-snatchings in the parking lots of a Wal-Mart store and grocery stores. In three of the cases, a male passenger in a car driven by Yagyayeva snatched a woman's purse from a shopping cart as the woman was loading bags of merchandise or merchandise in her vehicle. In the fourth case, Yagyayeva drove up to a shopping cart in a parking lot, got out of her car, and snatched a woman's purse from the cart while the woman was loading groceries into her vehicle.
In one of the cases, the purse-snatching victim claimed she had cash, jewelry and other property worth more than $40,000 in her tote handbag. At a restitution hearing, the prosecution presented a three-page list of items prepared by the victim, who also testified at the hearing. Among the items that were in the stolen purse were $3,250 in cash, 21 pieces of jewelry valued at a total of $33,230, and 15 gift cards totaling $1,125 from 12 stores. The victim's Chanel Tote Handbag was valued at $2,150. The victim, who was going through a divorce and planning a trip to Texas within a few days of the theft, testified she was carrying all of her jewelry with her so she could have it cleaned before the trip.
The court ordered that the victim be awarded restitution in the amount of $42,401, reduced by the value of any property returned to her. In response to defense counsel's argument that it was incredible the victim had that amount of cash and jewelry in her purse, the court noted:
"It's probably not something that I would do or . . . maybe some of us in this room wouldn't do, but it doesn't mean that the victim didn't do it. [] It is unusual, but I don't find it incredible. And I did observe her during her testimony, and I don't see any reason not to believe what she said. The testimony was uncontroverted. She's the only one [who] knows what was in her purse and why it was there, and she explained all of that. So I have no reason to disbelieve any of what she has said."
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has not referred us to any possible, but not arguable issues pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.
We granted Yagyayeva permission to file a brief on her own behalf. She has not responded.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Yagyayeva on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
