Filed 1/24/24 P. v. Mikkelson CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SARAH MIKKELSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

F084626

(Super. Ct. No. CR-21-009121)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Dawna

Reeves, Judge.

Nancy Wechsler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Peña, J. and Snauffer, J.
2.

STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY

This appeal is from a final judgment of conviction after a jury trial and is 

authorized by Penal Code section 1237.1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A first amended information filed on April 21, 2022, by the Stanislaus County 

District Attorney charged Mikkelson with unauthorized use of a vehicle (Veh. Code, 

§ 10851, subd. (a); count 1); receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496d, subd. (a); count 2); and 

grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a); count 3). As to all three counts, it was alleged that the value 

of the property exceeded nine hundred and fifty dollars ($950).

On May 2, 2022, a jury found Mikkelson guilty on all counts and the special 

allegations true.

On May 31, 2022, the trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed 

Mikkelson on probation for two years. She was also ordered to serve 180 days in county 

jail and to pay a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)); a $300 probation revocation 

fine, stayed (§ 1202.44); $90 in criminal conviction assessments (Gov. Code, § 70373); 

and $120 in court operation assessments (§ 1465.8).

On July 11, 2022, Mikkelson filed a timely notice of appeal.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Prosecution’s Evidence

In 2018, Hertz District Manager Shelby Culp processed Mikkelson’s temporary 

replacement car rental. At that time, Culp had worked for Hertz for about seven months 

and her job was then limited to the rental process. Mikkelson rented a 2019 Toyota 

Corolla from December 15 to December 24, 2018, at a daily rental rate of $25.75 for a 

total of $310.02. Because the car was rented to replace Mikkelson’s stolen car, 

Mikkelson’s insurer, Geico Insurance Company, paid a portion of the rental fees.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 
3.

Although the rental car was supposed to be returned on December 24, 2018, it was 

not returned on that date. Culp did not know whether or not the rental term was extended 

past January 4, 2019.

Hertz believed the rental was overdue and tried to contact Mikkelson about 

returning the car. Culp explained that entries on Hertz’s Overdue Report indicated Hertz 

attempted to contact Mikkelson about the overdue rental car 43 times.2 Culp described 

five of the 43 entries. Culp also explained that the 43 entries were recorded “as soon as 

the representatives [made] contact or attempt[ed] contact.”

Hertz deemed Mikkelson’s car rental to be stolen on January 11, 2019.3 As of that 

date, the value of the Toyota was $13,855.34. On February 1, Hertz mailed a certified 

letter to Mikkelson demanding return of the car.

On February 19, Mikkelson had an outstanding balance of $1,515.07. That same 

day, the local Hertz office reported to the Modesto Police Department that Mikkelson’s 

rental car had been stolen.

On February 22, CHP Officer Matthew McCain, a member of the Stanislaus 

County Auto Theft Task Force, noticed a car parked at a Motel 6 with Modesto Toyota 

dealership paper plates affixed to it. McCain explained that cold plating, i.e., replacing 

legitimate plates with paper plates, is a common occurrence with stolen cars. McCain 

opined that Modesto Toyota would not have issued paper plates under the circumstances. 

Because the car matched the description of a car Hertz had reported stolen, McCain 

compared the missing car’s vehicle identification number (VIN) with the VIN located on 

the parked car’s dashboard. As McCain – who did not identify himself as law 

enforcement and was not in uniform – inspected the car, Mikkelson approached and 

2 Mikkelson contends that 36 of the 43 entries are questionable: 24 entries are 

ambiguous and 12 entries either do not describe attempts to contact Mikkelson or indicate 

Hertz used an incorrect phone number or email. 

3 Subsequent references to dates are to dates in 2019 unless otherwise stated. 
4.

asked what he was doing. McCain ignored her and got into his unmarked car. But before 

driving off, McCain stopped his car, rolled down his window, and told Mikkelson that the 

car had been reported stolen and, if she was caught driving it, she would be arrested.

Then, on February 27, McCain found the same car parked near a restaurant. 

Mikkelson got out of the car and entered the restaurant with someone. Later, the two 

returned to the car and Mikkelson drove it away. McCain followed in his unmarked car, 

conducted a traffic stop, and detained Mikkelson. During a search of the car trunk, police 

found the rental car’s license plates and Mikkelson’s personal items which included an 

unopened certified letter from Hertz. Mikkelson subsequently was arrested.

Defense Evidence

Mikkelson testified that on February 22 she first learned there was an outstanding 

balance beyond what Geico covered.4 At that point, she testified she paid Hertz the sum 

of $1,515.07. Mikkelson believed she was in good standing with Hertz and was 

authorized to possess and drive Hertz’s rental car during the time in question.

Officer McCain testified that, after he arrested Mikkelson on February 27, 

Mikkelson provided him with telephonic “evidence” of her February 22 full payment to 

Hertz. However, there was no written evidence of payment offered at trial.

Culp conceded that she did not know whether any payments had been made on 

Mikkelson’s account after February 19.

Evidence Relating to Mikkelson’s Rental Term

Mikkelson did not know her rental term had expired. Both she and Geico had 

extended the car rental term.

5

 Mikkelson believed she was in good standing with Hertz 

4 Geico paid Hertz the sum of $868.05. 

5 Mikkelson claimed that the prosecution’s evidence showed the return date had 

been extended at least two times to January 15 and February 20. 
5.

and was authorized to possess and drive the rental car during the time in question. 

Mikkelson would not have kept using the rental car had she known it was reported stolen. 

Culp conceded she did not know whether Mikkelson’s return date had been 

extended.

Evidence Relating to Communications Between Mikkelson and Hertz

When Mikkelson initially rented the car from Hertz, she disclosed her phone 

number. Mikkelson explained that she changed her number and replaced her phone after 

her former husband broke her phone. She provided her new number to Hertz.

Mikkelson also disclosed her email address to Hertz as 

NURSEMIKK@gmail.com, but the overdue report shows that when Hertz sent emails to 

Mikkelson they were sent to UNRSEMIKK@gmail.com, an incorrect email address. 

Mikkelson received some emails from Hertz at her correct email address but none that 

reported an overdue status.

Mikkelson also disclosed her physical address to Hertz but she later moved. After 

she moved, she arranged to have her mail forwarded to her new address. She picked up 

the certified letter from the post office a day or two before her arrest. McCain testified 

that when police found the certified letter in the rental car’s trunk, it was unopened. 

Evidence Related to Paper Plates Used by Appellant

At some point, Mikkelson noticed that the rental car’s license plates were missing. 

She explained that, because she did not want to drive the car without plates and since the 

Department of Motor Vehicles was closed, she took the car to the Modesto Toyota 

dealership to quickly remedy the problem. After informing the dealership about the 

missing plates, they affixed paper plates onto the car.

Mikkelson testified that her former husband did “really mean things to her.” She 

was “pretty sure” that he was responsible for removing and placing the plates in the 

trunk; she had no other explanation.
6.

McCain did not contact the Modesto Toyota dealership to verify or disprove 

Mikkelson’s explanation. McCain doubted but did not know whether or not a dealership 

would provide paper plates under the circumstances presented by Mikkelson. The 

defense presented no written evidence of the Toyota dealership’s alleged actions in this 

case. McCain conceded that there was no evidence of an attempt to conceal or obfuscate 

the VIN on the car’s dashboard.

APPELLATE COURT REVIEW

Mikkelson’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that 

summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to review the 

record independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) The opening 

brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating Mikkelson was advised 

she could file her own brief with this court. By letter on November 1, 2023, we invited 

Mikkelson to submit additional briefing. To date, she has not done so.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of 

ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a 

disposition more favorable to Mikkelson. 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.