Filed 9/30/14 P. v. Casioce 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E060938
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI1400179)
EVELYN LORRANINE CASIOCE, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Miriam Ivy
Morton, Judge. Affirmed.
Howard C. Cohen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant and appellant Evelyn
Lorranine Casioce pled no contest to petty theft with three prior theft-related convictions
1
(Pen. Code, §§ 484/666, subd. (a))1 and admitted that she had suffered three prior theft-
related offenses; in return, the remaining allegations were dismissed and defendant was
sentenced to a stipulated term of two years in county jail with credit for time served, and
concurrent with a violation of probation. Defendant appeals from the judgment,
challenging the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea. We find no error and
affirm.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2
On January 14, 2014, defendant entered a Walmart store and selected a duffel bag.
Defendant then went around the store selecting several items and placing the items in the
duffel bag. Defendant exited the store with the duffel bag full of merchandise without
making any attempt to pay for the items. When defendant was approached by a Walmart
loss prevention officer, defendant dropped the bag and fled from the loss prevention
officer. Defendant was eventually apprehended by an officer who was at the location
investigating an unrelated custody theft. Defendant did not have any means of paying for
the merchandise which totaled $463.11.
On January 16, 2014, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant with one
count of petty theft with three prior theft-related convictions (§§ 484/666, subd. (a);
1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
2 The factual background is taken from the police report.
2
count 1) and one count of second degree burglary (§ 459; count 2). The complaint also
alleged that defendant had suffered three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
On March 3, 2014, defendant entered into a negotiated no contest plea. Defendant
pled no contest to count 1 and admitted that she had suffered three prior theft-related
convictions as alleged in count 1. In return, the remaining charge and enhancement
allegations would be dismissed and defendant would be sentenced to a stipulated term of
two years in county jail with credit for time served, and concurrent with a probation
violation. After directly examining defendant, the trial court found that defendant
understood the nature of the charges and the consequences of the plea; that the plea was
entered into freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently; and that there was a factual
basis for her plea. Defendant was thereafter immediately sentenced in accordance with
her plea agreement and awarded a total of 100 days credit for time served.
On April 1, 2014, defendant filed a notice of appeal, challenging the sentence or
other matters occurring after the plea.
II
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, 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
conduct an independent review of the record.
3
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and she
has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
KING
J.
MILLER
J.
4