Filed 9/29/26 P. v. Navarro 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
(San Joaquin)
THE PEOPLE, C103470
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No.
v. STKCRFE20230012922)
CELINA LYNN NAVARRO,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appointed counsel for defendant Celina Lynn Navarro asked this court to
independently review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on
appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After reviewing the record, we will
modify the judgment to vacate certain ancillary costs imposed and stayed despite
Navarro’s inability to pay. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
BACKGROUND
In November 2023, the San Joaquin County District Attorney filed a complaint
against Navarro alleging that, between July 2020 and December 2022, she received aid
by misrepresentation over $950 (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 10980, subd. (c)(2)), and that,
between those same dates, Navarro committed perjury by signing and submitting false
documents (Pen. Code, § 118, subd. (a)).1 On December 28, 2023, Navarro was
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
appointed counsel, arraigned, and released on her own recognizance. On March 15,
2024, Navarro entered not guilty pleas as to all counts, and the court set the preliminary
hearing for March 27, 2024. The preliminary hearing was continued due to the
unavailability of a material witness. On April 30, 2024, Navarro personally waived the
10-court-day and 60-day periods for conducting the preliminary hearing (§ 859b), and
defense counsel joined in the waiver.
On June 14, 2024, the prosecution requested to continue the preliminary hearing
due to the unavailability of a material witness. Over defense counsel’s objection, the
court continued the preliminary hearing. The minute order states: “Time waiver pulled
by defendant and defense counsel.”
The preliminary hearing occurred on August 19, 2024, and Navarro was held to
answer. A subsequently filed information charged Navarro with receiving aid by
misrepresentation in the amount of $20,058 between July 2020 and December 2022
(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 10980, subd. (c)(2); count 1) and six counts of perjury (§ 118,
subd. (a); counts 2-7), which were alleged to have been committed on June 9, 2020,
December 5, 2020, June 8, 2021, December 11, 2021, June 8, 2022, and December 16,
2022, respectively.
The following evidence was adduced at trial. The San Joaquin County Human
Services Agency (Agency) provides services and aid to eligible county residents through
programs like CalFresh (food stamps used to purchase food-only items), CashAid (cash
benefits to purchase nonfood items), and Medi-Cal (also known as Medicaid for health
insurance). To be eligible for aid, a client must reside in the issuing county and be within
income limits for the household size. When applying for aid, clients apply for a 12-
month certification period. They must submit a recertification report every six months.
CalFresh benefits are uploaded in monthly allotments to an EBT (electronic benefits
transaction) card, which is used for purchases like an ATM card.
2
Navarro initially filed an application, under penalty of perjury, for CalFresh and
CashAid in San Joaquin County on December 6, 2019. Navarro included herself, her son
L.C., and an unborn child in her initial benefit application. She stated she lived in San
Joaquin County at a residence in Lathrop (the Lathrop residence). She listed her monthly
household gross income as less than $150 and said her checking and savings account
balance was $100 or less. Navarro listed Sergio Castillo as an absent parent living in
Oakland with an unknown phone number and said she had last heard from him in June
2016. She later withdrew the CashAid portion of her application.
Navarro electronically signed, under penalty of perjury, a first annual
recertification packet on June 9, 2020.2 She reported the birth of her daughter, G.C.
Although Navarro was not required to disclose the identity of G.C.’s father for purposes
of receiving CalFresh benefits, she admitted at trial that Castillo was in fact G.C.’s father
even though she initially had reported last hearing from him in June 2016. She reported
no changes to her address or household income and did not list Castillo as a household
member.
In a first semiannual report, which Navarro electronically signed under penalty of
perjury on December 5, 2020, Navarro reported no changes to her household and said she
was not receiving any child support.
Navarro signed a second annual recertification packet under penalty of perjury on
June 8, 2021. She reported no changes.
Navarro electronically signed a second semiannual report under penalty of perjury
on December 11, 2021. She reported no changes to her address, household composition,
or income.
2 Although this was before the expiration of the 12-month benefit period, the program
manager testified that the dates shifted due to COVID-related issues.
3
Navarro electronically signed a third annual recertification packet under penalty of
perjury on June 8, 2022. She reported no changes.
Navarro signed a third semiannual report under penalty of perjury on
December 16, 2022. She reported that her third child, C.C., was born in October 2022,
and she was not required to disclose the child’s father. She reported no updates to her
income.
During this period, a total of $20,058 was spent on Navarro’s EBT card. Out of a
total of 309 EBT purchases, 288 were made within a few miles of a Stanislaus County
residence in Patterson (the Patterson residence) that Castillo owned. Only five purchases
were made in San Joaquin County (none of which were in Lathrop).
Based in part on Navarro’s excessive EBT use in Stanislaus County rather than
near the Lathrop residence in San Joaquin County where she allegedly resided, a district
attorney investigator was assigned to investigate Navarro for possible welfare fraud. In
March 2023, the investigator observed Navarro exit the Patterson residence, load her
children into her car, and drive her oldest child, L.C., to a nearby elementary school
where he was enrolled as a student with the Patterson residence listed as his address.
Navarro later returned to the Patterson residence with her two other children and went
inside the residence.
The investigator asked a Patterson police officer to drive by the Patterson
residence one evening close to midnight in March 2023. The officer observed Navarro’s
car parked in front of the house.
The investigator drove by the Lathrop residence that Navarro listed as her
residence on her benefits applications and renewals multiple times between 7:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m. and never saw Navarro, her vehicle, or any of her children. Two neighbors of
the Patterson residence saw Navarro and her children on numerous occasions at the house
with Castillo.
4
The investigator also learned that Castillo had been employed with the same
employer since 2012. Factoring in Castillo’s presence in the household and the amount
of his income as provided by his employer, an Agency eligibility worker determined that
between July 2020 and December 2022, Navarro received an over issuance of $20,058 in
CalFresh benefits.
Navarro testified on her own behalf at trial. She said she moved to Patterson with
Castillo and their son, L.C., in October 2019, but later that year they separated and she
moved to Lathrop with L.C. to live with Castillo’s mother.
When she moved to Lathrop, she was unemployed and nine months pregnant. She
and Castillo agreed that L.C. would remain enrolled in school in Patterson. Navarro
drove L.C. approximately 30 minutes from Lathrop to Patterson for school; after
dropping him off, Navarro sometimes would go to her sister’s house, who also lived in
Patterson, or sometimes go to the Patterson residence owned by Castillo. She kept a key
to the Patterson residence, so it was easier for the children to visit with their father.
Because Navarro and Castillo were not married or together, Navarro did not
include Castillo’s income in her original aid application; she believed he was not
obligated to support her financially. Although they were not in a romantic relationship,
they had two more children together—G.C. and C.C. Castillo paid for things for the
children when they were with him but did not otherwise financially support Navarro or
the children except to pay for Navarro’s gas to drive between Lathrop and Patterson. The
children typically spent one or two nights a week with Castillo and Navarro would
sometimes spend the night at the Patterson residence on weekends to facilitate visits.
Navarro used the EBT card primarily in Patterson for convenience because L.C.
went to school there and her sister could watch the other children when she shopped.
Except for snacks for the children, she did not bring the food she purchased into the
Patterson residence.
5
In October 2022, Navarro reconciled with Castillo and asked for her case to be
closed. In the months leading up to October 2022, the Agency tried to meet with Navarro
in person but she canceled the appointments multiple times. In February 2023, Navarro
moved back to the Patterson residence.
The jury acquitted Navarro of committing fraud to obtain aid (count 1) but found
her guilty of the six counts of perjury (counts 2-7). In February 2025, the trial court
placed Navarro on two years of informal probation on various terms and conditions and
ordered her to serve 180 days in county jail, with the court recommending home
detention in lieu of custody in jail. The court imposed a $180 court facilities assessment
($30 per conviction) under Government Code section 70373, a $240 court facilities
assessment ($40 per conviction) under section 1465.8, a minimum $300 restitution fine
(§ 1202.4), and a $300 probation revocation restitution fine, suspended unless probation
was revoked (§ 1202.44). The court “permanently stayed” the assessments as well as the
restitution fine, finding Navarro had no ability to pay them. The court ordered Navarro to
pay the remaining balance of restitution calculated at $4,611.28. Navarro timely
appealed.
DISCUSSION
Navarro’s appointed counsel asked this court to independently review the record
to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised Navarro of her right to file a supplemental brief within
30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. We have not received any
communication from Navarro.
After reviewing the record, we have determined the trial court erred in staying the
assessments imposed under Government Code section 70373 and section 1465.8, which
require imposition of a $30 and $40 fee per felony conviction, respectively. In People v.
Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, our Supreme Court held that, if a defendant requests, a trial
court must consider the defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations or
6
court facilities assessment pursuant to these statutes. (Id. at p. 30 [given that the
Legislature has provided fee waivers to indigent civil litigants, “equal protection
principles require a court, upon request, to consider a [criminal] defendant’s inability to
pay” before imposing either assessment].)
Here, the trial court imposed the assessments but “permanently stayed” them
based on Navarro’s “[i]nability to pay.” Having found Navarro had no ability to pay
these assessments, the court should not have imposed and stayed them, but rather should
have stricken them. (People v. Kopp, supra, 19 Cal.5th at p. 30 [“No similar differences
justify denying criminal defendants the right to seek a waiver of certain ancillary costs
when civil litigants facing the same costs may receive such a waiver”].) Accordingly, we
shall strike the court operations and court facilities assessments.
We find no other arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable
to Navarro.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to vacate the court facilities assessment (Gov. Code,
§ 70373, subd. (a)(1)) and the court operations assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)). As
modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended
abstract of judgment in accordance with this opinion and to forward a copy to the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
/s/
BOULWARE EURIE, J.
We concur:
/s/
MAURO, Acting P. J.
/s/
KRAUSE, J.
7
