1 

Filed 6/16/15 P. v. Mota 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 

(Shasta) 

---- 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

DARLYNE DANETTE MOTA, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

C077173 

(Super. Ct. Nos. 14F1432, 

13F5597, 13F6715 ) 

 Appointed counsel for defendant Darlyne Danette Mota asked this court to review 

the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v.

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a 

disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. We provide the 

following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. 

Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) 
2 

 On August 16, 2013, defendant walked out of a Rite Aid drug store with 

alcoholic beverages she did not pay for. Defendant was arrested, charged in Shasta 

County Superior Court case No. 13-05597 (No. 5597), and released on bail. 

 On September 16, 2013, defendant walked out of a Raley’s supermarket with 

several items including alcoholic beverages she did not pay for. Defendant was 

followed by the Raley’s store manager to an adjacent business, “SHOPKO.” The 

Raley’s store manager believed defendant intended to take items from SHOPKO without 

paying for them, and warned the SHOPKO employees. Defendant was arrested and 

charged with multiple crimes in Shasta County Superior Court case No. 13-06715 

(No. 6715). 

 In case No. 6715, defendant pled no contest to burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)1

and admitted to being previously convicted of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, 

subd. (a)(1)). In case No. 5597, defendant pled no contest to petty theft with a prior 

theft conviction (§ 666) and admitted to being previously convicted of assault with a 

deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). In exchange for defendant’s plea, the remaining 

charges in both matters were dismissed with Harvey2 waivers along with two unrelated 

cases. Defendant reserved the right to argue her prior conviction was not a strike 

offense and the People agreed defendant would serve a maximum term of four years 

in state prison if the prior conviction were determined to be a strike offense. The trial 

court later found defendant’s prior conviction was, in fact, a strike offense. 

 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 

2 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. 
3 

 On March 15, 2014, Ronald Fallows heard “some commotion” outside his 

apartment. Fallows went outside and approached defendant. Defendant waved a large 

stick at Fallows, “nick[ing]” his glasses. As defendant swung the stick at Fallows, she 

threatened to hurt him. She also said: “I’m going to [f] you up right now.” Defendant 

then hit a small dog with the large stick. 

 Defendant was arrested and charged with multiple crimes in Shasta County 

Superior Court case No. 14-1432 (No. 1432). The trial court later denied defendant’s 

motion for new counsel and defendant pled no contest in case No. 1432 to making a 

criminal threat. (§ 422.) Defendant also admitted she was previously convicted of 

assault with a deadly weapon by means likely to inflict great bodily injury. (§§ 245, subd 

(a)(1) & 12022.7.) In exchange for defendant’s plea, the remaining charges and 

allegations were dismissed. 

 The trial court subsequently sentenced defendant in case Nos. 5597, 6715, and 

1432 to serve an aggregate term of five years four months in state prison. The court 

ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees and awarded her a total of 441 days of 

custody credit. Defendant appeals without a certificate of probable cause. 

 We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening 

brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and 

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 

436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 

30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we 

received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the 

entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable 

to defendant. 
4 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 HOCH , J. 

We concur: 

 NICHOLSON , Acting P. J. 

 MURRAY , J.