1

Filed 7/28/16 P. v. Xirouhakis 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

(El Dorado)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANTONIOS DIMITRIOUS XIROUHAKIS,

Defendant and Appellant. C080825

(Super. Ct. No. P12CRF0303)

Appointed counsel for defendant Antonios Dimitrious Xirouhakis has filed an

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

and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende (1979)

25 Cal. 3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more

favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

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, 123

- 124.)2

Elicia Hill paid defendant $30,000 for five acres of land defendant claimed to

own. Hill also paid defen dant $20,000 for a second piece of land that he claimed to own.

A few weeks later, defendant sent Hill a letter saying he d id not own the land.

Mary Lusi paid defendant $12,420 to remodel her kitchen, but defendant failed to

perform the work. L usi suf fered $12,500 in additional damages related to defendant’s

failure to complete the remodel, including hiring a contractor to repair and complete the

work and purchasing a barbeque so that she could cook during the year

- long remodel.

Defendant was charged with attempt to file false or forged instrument (counts 1 &

3; Pen. Code, § 115, subd. (a)); felony grand theft of personal property (counts 2, 4 & 5;

Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)); felony unlawful use of a contractor’s license (count 6; Bus.

& Prof. Code, § 7027.3) and misdemeanor contracting without a license (count 7; Bus. &

Prof. Code, § 7028).

Defendant pleaded no contest to counts 6 and 7. Per the parties’ agreement, the

trial court placed defendant on three years’ probation. All the remaining cou nts were

dismissed with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 754. The trial

court imposed a $300 restitution fine and a stayed $300 probation revocation fine. (Pen.

Code, § § 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.44.) The trial court also awarded res titution of $30,000

to Hill and $24,920 to Lusi, with $150 to be paid monthly to each victim.

Defendant appeals without a certific ate of probable cause.

DISCUSSION

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

brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to determine whether there are any

arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende, supra , 25 Cal. 3d 436.) Counsel advised

defendant of the right to fil e a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of fil ing of

the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no

communication from defendant. We have undertaken an examination of the entire record

and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defenda nt.3 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.

We concur:

DUARTE , J.

RENNER , J.