Filed 7/21/21 P. v. Morales CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CRISTAL URBINA MORALES

,

Defendant and Appellant

. H0 48620 ( Monterey County Super. Ct. No. 20CR004088 )

On April 30, 2020, 1 a ppellant Cristal Urbina Morales entered another person’s

home without their permission. 2 Video surveillance footage showed Morales trying to

enter the home through the front door and then through a window after having ripped off

the window screen. Morales was able to reach inside the house through the window and

move some items.

On May 1, t he Monterey County District Attorney filed a complaint alleging that

Morales had committed first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459; count 1) 3 and
misdemeanor vandalism of property valued less than $400 (§ 594, subd. (b)(2)(A); count

2). On Ma y 12, Morales’s trial counsel expressed a doubt about Morales’s mental

competency. Pursuant to section 1368, the trial court suspended criminal proceedings

1 All dates were in 2020.

2 These facts are drawn from the probation report prepared for Morales’s sentencing.

3 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.2

and referred Morales for an expert evaluation of her competency. On June 2, following a

hearing, t he trial court found Morales competent under section 1368 to stand trial and

reinstated criminal proceedings.

On July 9, the district attorney amended the complaint to add count 3, second

degree burglary, in violation of section 459. That same day, Mora les entered a plea of no

contest to count 3. Morales entered this plea pursuant to a plea bargain in which she

agreed to serve a three year sentence under section 1170, subdivision (h) (hereafter

section 1170(h)), of which she would serve seven months in custody

, followed by two
years and five months of mandatory supervision. Morales entered a “ Harvey W aiver” as

to count 2 ( s ee People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754) and agreed to stay away from an

address in Salinas during her term of mandatory supervisio n

. On August 13, the trial court denied probation and imposed a three

- year sentence
on count 3. The trial court ordered Morales to serve seven months in the county jail

pursuant to section 1170(h) and suspended execution of the balance of the sentence. T he

trial court placed Morales on mandatory supervision for a period of two years and five

months following her release from jail and imposed a number of supervision conditions,

including that she obey all laws . The trial court ordered Morales to pay fines and fees,

including $50 in restitution to the victim, and awarded her 212 days of custody credits

. According to the minute order for Morales’s sentencing, the court dismissed counts 1 and

2 pursuant to section 1385.

On September 24, the Monterey County P robation D epartment filed a notice of

violation of ma ndatory supervision, stating that Morales had committed a number of new

crimes. On October 22, Morales admitted she had violated the terms of her mandatory

supervision by failing to obey all laws . On November 12, the trial court revoked

Morales ’s mandatory supervision and ordered her to serve the balance of the three

- year
term in the county jail pursuant to section 1170(h). The trial court awarded her 353 days3

of custody credits , consisting of 197 actual days and 156 days of conduct/work credits

. Morales filed a timely notice of appeal.

We appointed counsel to represent Morales on appeal. Appellate counsel filed an

opening brief stating the case and the facts but raising no specific legal issues. Counsel

has declared that counsel notified Mora les both of counsel’s intention to request

independent review under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ), and of

Morales’s right to file written argument on her own behalf. We notified Morales of her

right to submit written argument on her own beh alf but have received no response from

her

.
We have reviewed the record under Wende

, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v.

Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106. Concluding there is no arguable issue on appeal, we affirm

the judgment.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.______________________________________ D anner, J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________________ Greenwood

, P .J.

____________________________________ Grover , J.

H048620 People v. Morales