Filed 11/19/20 P. v. Cubas CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and 

Respondent,

v.

CINTHIA YAMILETH 

CUBAS,

Defendant and 

Appellant.

 B301934

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. YA096577)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Alan B. Honeycutt, Judge. Affirmed.

Joy A. Maulitz, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________
2

Defendant and appellant Cinthia Yamileth Cubas 

pleaded no contest to a charge of assault by means of force 

likely to produce great bodily injury on a victim in violation 

of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(4). The named 

victim was walking through a shopping mall parking lot 

with his daughters, and passed Cubas, who was embroiled in 

a heated argument. One of victim’s daughters made a 

comment, and Cubas began yelling at the family. She tried 

to pepper spray the victim in the parking lot, and then 

followed and struck the victim and his daughters with her 

car as they were walking in a cross walk near the mall.

Cubas was charged with three counts of assault with a 

deadly weapon (one count each relating to the victim and his 

two daughters) in violation of Penal Code section 245, 

subdivision (a)(1) (counts 1-3) and one count of hit and run 

driving resulting in injury of another in violation of Vehicle 

Code section 20001, subdivision (b)(1).

Cubas agreed to plead no contest to a violation of Penal 

Code section 245, subdivision (a)(4), to be added to the 

information by interlineation as count 5. She was to be 

sentenced to the low term of two years in state prison, with 

sentence suspended, and placed on five years formal 

probation. She was to serve one year in county jail, pay 

restitution to all victims, and complete a six-month anger 

management course, as well as complying with other

conditions of probation. Cubas would be allowed to 

surrender at a later date.
3

On October 15, 2018, she pleaded no contest to count 5, 

in conformance with the plea agreement. Prior to entering 

her plea: Cubas was informed of her rights, and made a 

knowing and intelligent waiver. The trial court further 

informed Cubas that, if she violated a term or condition of 

probation, she could be sentenced to two years in state 

prison. Cubas was also advised she was to be released 

pending sentencing, and she acknowledged her 

understanding that, if she failed to appear for sentencing, 

her plea would be considered an open plea subjecting her to 

a sentence of up to four years in state prison.

Cubas failed to appear at the sentencing hearing on 

January 14, 2019. A bench warrant issued and she again 

failed to appear on January 23, 2019, the bench warrant 

hold date. On June 14, 2019, Cubas was brought to the 

court by the bail bonds investigator, and surrendered on the 

bond.

At the sentencing hearing on August 19, 2019, the 

court considered statements of the victims and family, and 

noted that the plea was an open plea. The court stated that

its decision was based on the facts and not Cubas’s failure to 

appear. The court considered factors in aggravation 

(vulnerability of victims) and mitigation (defendant’s youth 

and lack of a prior record). The trial court denied probation, 

sentenced Cubas to three years in state prison, and awarded 
4

her 134 days of presentence custody credit.1 The court held 

an ability to pay hearing and found Cubas indigent. The 

court found good cause to suspend the fines and fees 

imposed, with the exception of any actual victim restitution. 

The court further found that Cubas failed to complete the 

prohibited persons relinquishment form required under 

Penal Code section 29810.

Cubas filed a notice of appeal from the judgment after 

a no contest plea and checked the box on the appeal form 

indicating the appeal was based on the sentence or other 

matters occurring after the plea. We appointed counsel for 

her on appeal. On July 7, 2020, counsel filed a brief 

pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), 

raising no issues but asking this court to independently 

review the record for error.

We advised Cubas on July 7, 2020, of her right to file a 

brief or letter containing any issues she wishes this court to 

consider. No response has been received to date.

We have examined the entire record and find no 

arguable issues on appeal. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 

U.S. 259, 278–284; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

1 Cubas subsequently filed, and the trial court granted, 

a motion arguing that she was entitled to an additional two 

days of custody credit.
5

The judgment is affirmed.

MOOR, J.

We concur:

BAKER, Acting P. J.

KIM, J.