Filed 6/21/24 P. v. Gomez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

CHRISTI ANN GOMEZ,

Defendant and Appellant. F086690

(Super. Ct. No. 22CM1480)



### OPINION

THE COURT *
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Robert S

. Burns, Judge.

Erin J. Radekin , 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 Levy, Acting P. J., Poochigian, J. and Detjen, J.2

. INTRODUCTION
In 2023, a jury convicted appellant Christi Ann Gomez of unlawfully o btaining
personal information belonging to another and using that information for an unlawful
purpose (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a); count 2). The jury also convicted appellant of
misdemeanor possessing a device used to unlawfully ingest a controlled sub stance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a); count 3)

. Appellant has a lengthy criminal record going back to 199 8 . She has
approximately 14 prior misdemeanor convictions and two prior felony convictions. She
was on probation when the convictions in this matter occurred.
In count 2, appellant was sentenced to the middle term of two years, to be served
in local custody. In count 3, she was ordered to serve 180 days in jail, consecutive to the
sentence imposed in count 2. 1
Appellant’s counsel has fi led a Wende 2 brief in this court. After reviewing the
entire record, we affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND
The prosecution established at trial that appellant possessed and used a driver’s
license which did not belong to her. Appellant used the stolen identification to rent a

U

- Haul truck. 3
When contacted by law enforcement, a drug pipe was recovered in appellant’s
constructive possession. A law enforcement officer opined that the pipe had been used to
ingest methamphetamine.

1 Initially, the trial court imposed a split sentence in which appellant would serve part of her time in local custody and the remaining time on mandatory supervision. Appellant, however, personally asked to spend all of her time in jail custody, which the court ordered.

2 People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende )

. 3 In count 1, appellant was charged with grand theft of the truck in violation of Penal Code section 487, subdivision (d)(1). The jury acquitted appellant of this charge.3

. DISCUSSION

Follo wing her conviction, appellant appealed her judgment. Her appellate counsel
subsequently filed a Wende brief in this court. The Wende brief raises n o arguable issue s. Following receipt of the Wende brief, appellant was apprised of her right to file a

su pplemental brief or letter in this court raising any issues she wished considered. She
did not respond and has not f ile d anything in this court.

Pursuant to Wende and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 ( Kelly ) , we have

reviewed the entire record. Consistent with our Supreme Court ’ s direction in Kelly , we

have provide d a brief description of the relevant facts and the procedural history of this

case . We have summarized the crimes of which appellant was convict ed, and the
punishment imposed. ( Kelly

, supra , 40 Cal.4th at p. 110 .)
After reviewing the entire record, we have not discovered any arguable issues that
would result in a disposition more favorable to appellant. Therefore, w e affirm the
judgment.

DISPO SITION

The judgment is affirmed

.