P. v. Munoz
Filed 2/27/13 P. v. Munoz CA1/4
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
FOUR
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MICAELLE MUNOZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
A136521
(Solano
County
Super. Ct.
No. VCR199303)
Defendant
Micaelle Munoz timely appealed after the trial court ordered that the terms of
her probation be modified. Her counsel
has asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine
whether there are any arguable issues. (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We
find no arguable issues and affirm.
On
August 13, 2009,
defendant pleaded no contest pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of
§ 487, subd. (a)) in connection with taking money from her employer,
a Mervyn’s department store, by improperly marking down items and selling them
to family members over a four-month period.
The trial court placed defendant on three years’ probation and ordered
her to pay restitution to the department store.
Because Mervyn’s declared bankruptcy and went out of business, the trial
court modified the terms of probation on April 16, 2010, and ordered
defendant to pay $5,000 to the victim’s restitution fund.
The
probation department requested in May 2012 that defendant’s probation be
extended to allow her to pay down the outstanding restitution-order balance,
then totaling somewhere between $3,445 and $3,800. At a hearing on August 17, 2012, the trial court reduced the total
amount owed by defendant to $1,000, to be directed to a Mervyn’s representative
through the district attorney’s office, and extended defendant’s probation for
an additional nine months to allow time for full repayment.
No
error appears in the modification of defendant’s probation. A court may modify and extend probation where
a defendant has been unable to pay full restitution within the original
probationary period. (Pen. Code,
§ 1203.3, subds. (a) [power to modify probation], (b)(4) [court may
modify time and manner of probation term for purpose of measuring timely
payment of restitution obligations]; People v.
Cookson (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1091, 1095.)
Defendant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings,
including at the hearing where the challenged order was made.
There
are no meritorious issues to be argued
on appeal. The trial court’s order
modifying probation is affirmed.
_________________________
Humes,
J.
We concur:
_________________________
Reardon, Acting P.J.
_________________________
Rivera, J.
