Filed 10/26/21 P. v. Patterson CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SARA SONG PATTERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B310805

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. YA097642)

THE COURT:

Sara Song Patterson (appellant) pleaded no contest to two 

counts of grand theft of an automobile (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. 

(d)(1))

1 and two counts of identity theft (§ 530.5. subd. (a)). She 

admitted that a 2008 robbery conviction qualified as a serious 

and/or violent felony under the “Three Strikes” law. (§§ 667,

1170.12.) In addition, she admitted to engaging in a pattern of 

two or more related felony crimes which resulted in a loss 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code 

unless otherwise indicated.
2

exceeding $100,000. (§ 186.11, subd. (a)(3).) At sentencing, the 

strike prior was stricken pursuant to the plea agreement. The 

trial court imposed the upper term of three years on one grand 

theft charge, plus an additional year under section 186.11, 

subdivision (a)(3). On each of the remaining three counts, it 

imposed consecutive eight-month terms.

About a month later, the parties stipulated to victim 

restitution of $4,956. The trial court imposed the agreed 

restitution pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (f). In 

addition, it imposed a $300 restitution fine pursuant to section 

1202.4, subdivision (b).

In the beginning of 2021, appellant filed a petition to 

modify the restitution order pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 1869

(2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2020, ch. 92), a bill that added, 

amended or repealed various statutes related to fees imposed by 

the courts on defendants following conviction. The trial court 

summarily denied appellant’s motion.

This appeal followed.

Appointed counsel filed a brief that raised no issues 

regarding the denial of appellants’ petition and, instead, 

requested that we follow the procedures set forth in People v. 

Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano). He declared: “I 

have written to appellant and explained my evaluation of the 

record on appeal and my intention to file [a Serrano brief]. I have 

also informed appellant of her right to file a supplemental brief 

and warned her that her appeal could be dismissed. I have also 

sent appellant the transcript of the record on appeal and a copy of 

this brief.”

This matter was submitted on June 21, 2021. 
3

We vacated submission on August 9, 2021, because 

appointed counsel did not inform appellant that she had 30 days 

to file a supplemental brief.2

To reset the clock, we sent appointed counsel a letter on 

August 9, 2021, stating: “Appointed counsel is directed to send 

the record of this appeal and a copy of appellant’s brief 

immediately. Also, appointed counsel must inform appellant that 

she has the right, within 30 days from the date of this notice, to 

submit a supplemental brief or letter stating any grounds for an 

appeal, or contentions, or arguments that she wishes this court to 

consider. Finally, appointed counsel is directed to provide the 

court with proof of compliance with this letter and the 

requirements set forth in [Cole].” We served appellant with a 

copy of our letter.

Appointed counsel did not serve proof of compliance with 

our letter and Cole. The 30 days have passed and appellant has

not filed a supplemental brief.

Despite appointed counsel’s noncompliance with our letter, 

we conclude that appellant has had sufficient notice of her rights. 

In his declaration, appointed counsel indicated that he previously 

sent appellant a copy of the record and his brief and told her she 

could file a supplemental brief. Our letter to appointed counsel 

was served on appellant and indicated that the deadline was 30 

days from August 9, 2021. Under the circumstances, the spirit of 

Cole has been satisfied. 

2 In People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1039, review 

granted October 14, 2020, S264278 (Cole), we held that “at the 

time counsel files the brief, counsel must (1) inform his or her 

client that the client has the right to file a supplemental brief to 

the Court of Appeal within 30 days, and (2) provide the client 

with a copy of counsel’s brief.”
4

Pursuant to Serrano, we do not independently review

appeals seeking postjudgment relief. (Cole, supra, 52 

Cal.App.5th at pp. 1039–1040; see Serrano, supra, 211 

Cal.App.4th at p. 503.) Our only role is to review arguments set 

forth in a supplement brief, if one is filed. (Cole, supra, at 

p. 1039.) In the absence of a supplemental brief, we exercise our 

discretion to dismiss this appeal as abandoned. (Cole, at p. 1040;

People v. Figueras (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 108, 111, review 

granted May 12, 2021, S267870; People v. Scott (2020) 58 

Cal.App.5th 1127, 1135, review granted Mar. 17, 2021, S266853.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

____________________________________________________________

LUI, P. J. ASHMANN-GERST, J. CHAVEZ, J.