Filed 9/13/13 P. v. Fraher CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E058260
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI012407)
CECILIA AGNES FRAHER, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith,
Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Jamie Popper, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
On April 25, 2001, an information charged defendant and appellant Cecilia Agnes
Fraher with three counts of murder under Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a)1
(counts 1-3), and three counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated under
section 191.5, subdivision (a) (counts 4-6). The information also alleged a prior Vehicle
Code section 23152, subdivision (a), conviction within the meaning of section 191.5,
subdivision (d) (counts 4-6); however, according to the September 27, 2002, probation
officer’s report, on motion of the People, the trial court struck the prior allegation on
August 14, 2002.
On August 30, 2002, a jury convicted defendant of all charges. On March 28,
2003, the trial court sentenced defendant to a total indeterminate term of 45 years to life
in state prison.
On December 24, 2012, defendant filed a petition to modify her sentence under
the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. (§ 1170.126.) On January 14, 2013, the trial
court denied the motion without appearances; it found that section 1170.126 did not apply
to defendant.
On March 1, 2013, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
2
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The facts of the underlying offenses are not relevant to this appeal. In sum,
defendant was involved in a traffic collision, which caused the deaths of three people.
ANALYSIS
After defendant appealed, and upon her request, this court appointed counsel to
represent her. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of
the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to
undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and she
has done so. On June 17, 2013, defendant submitted a five-page typewritten brief with
three exhibits. In her supplemental brief, defendant discusses: (1) the facts of the
underlying case regarding her culpability in causing the accident (i.e., she was on
numerous medications because of her heart surgery in 1998); (2) the jury instructions that
were given regarding her culpability in the underlying trial; and (3) ineffective assistance
of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct in the underlying case.
Notwithstanding defendant’s assertions, this appeal is from the trial court’s denial
of her motion for modification of sentence. This is not an appeal from the underlying
convictions; those appeals have already been exhausted. (See People v. Fraher (May 21,
2004, E033506) [nonpub. opn.].) Even defendant admits in her supplemental brief that
her “conviction withstood direct appeal and habeas in both state and federal courts.”
3
On December 24, 2012, almost 10 years after defendant was sentenced, she filed a
petition for modification of her sentence. On January 14, 2013, the trial court denied the
motion, stating in the minute order that defendant’s current commitment offenses are
three counts of murder and ruling that defendant is ineligible for resentencing under
section 1170.126.
In her motion for modification of sentence, defendant claimed that her sentence
should be modified to “reverse a strike.” However, no strike was applied. As noted ante,
the information alleged a prior conviction, which the trial court struck on the
prosecution’s motion. Defendant was convicted of three second degree murder charges
and three gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated charges. She was sentenced to
an indeterminate term of 45 years to life in state prison on those charges.
We have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable
issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
KING
J.
4