P. v. Zambrano
Filed 6/24/08 P. v. Zambrano CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MACEDONIA DELORES ZAMBRANO, Defendant and Appellant. | F053692 (Super. Ct. No. F07902227) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Arlan L. Harrell, Judge.
Tara K. Allen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
On May 14, 2007,[1] appellant Macedonia Zambrano, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled no contest to felony vandalism (Pen. Code, 594, subd. (a)). On June 18, the court suspended imposition of judgment, placed appellant on three years probation, ordered that she pay restitution and scheduled a hearing for July 9 to determine the amount of restitution.
On July 9, the restitution hearing was continued to July 30. On that date, the restitution hearing was held, and following the hearing the court ordered appellant to pay $4,845.84 in direct victim restitution.
Appellant filed her notice of appeal on September 5.
Appellants appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (Peoplev.Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing. We will affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Instant Offense
The report of the probation officer states that according to a Fresno County Sheriffs Department (FCSD) crime report, the confidential victim (victim) told FCSD deputies the following. He and appellant had formerly lived together, and he was the father of the couples two children. On January 1, the victim drove a vehicle belonging to Sonia Gomez to appellants house. Appellant and the victim argued, and appellant grabbed a push broom and began striking Gomez[s] car.
The RPO also states that deputies observed that the vehicle, which had four broken windows, busted taillights and numerous dents.
Restitution Hearing
At the restitution hearing, Gomez testified to the following. On January 1, her car sustained body and window damage. She obtained an estimate indicating that the cost of repairs for those damages would be $5,883.20. Thereafter, Gomez had the windows repaired, at a cost of $976.84. After paying for the windows, she obtained another estimate for the remaining damage, i.e., the damage to the body of the car. This estimate indicated that the remaining repairs would cost $3,849. Each of the estimates cost $10.
As indicated above, the court ordered appellant to pay restitution in the amount of $4,845.84, calculated as follows: $976.84 for the damage to the windows; $3,849, reflecting the cost of repairing the remaining damage as indicated in the second estimate; and $10 for each of the two estimates.
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
*Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Dawson, J.
[1] All references to dates of events are to dates in 2007.
