1

Filed 9/30/14 P. v. Casioce CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

EVELYN LORRANINE CASIOCE,

Defendant and Appellant.

E060938

(Super.Ct.No. FVI1400179)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Miriam Ivy

Morton, Judge. Affirmed.

Howard C. Cohen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant and appellant Evelyn 

Lorranine Casioce pled no contest to petty theft with three prior theft-related convictions 
2

(Pen. Code, §§ 484/666, subd. (a))

1 and admitted that she had suffered three prior theftrelated offenses; in return, the remaining allegations were dismissed and defendant was 

sentenced to a stipulated term of two years in county jail with credit for time served, and 

concurrent with a violation of probation. Defendant appeals from the judgment, 

challenging the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea. We find no error and 

affirm.

I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

On January 14, 2014, defendant entered a Walmart store and selected a duffel bag. 

Defendant then went around the store selecting several items and placing the items in the 

duffel bag. Defendant exited the store with the duffel bag full of merchandise without 

making any attempt to pay for the items. When defendant was approached by a Walmart 

loss prevention officer, defendant dropped the bag and fled from the loss prevention 

officer. Defendant was eventually apprehended by an officer who was at the location 

investigating an unrelated custody theft. Defendant did not have any means of paying for 

the merchandise which totaled $463.11. 

On January 16, 2014, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant with one 

count of petty theft with three prior theft-related convictions (§§ 484/666, subd. (a); 

 

1

 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

2

 The factual background is taken from the police report.
3

count 1) and one count of second degree burglary (§ 459; count 2). The complaint also 

alleged that defendant had suffered three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). 

On March 3, 2014, defendant entered into a negotiated no contest plea. Defendant 

pled no contest to count 1 and admitted that she had suffered three prior theft-related 

convictions as alleged in count 1. In return, the remaining charge and enhancement 

allegations would be dismissed and defendant would be sentenced to a stipulated term of 

two years in county jail with credit for time served, and concurrent with a probation 

violation. After directly examining defendant, the trial court found that defendant 

understood the nature of the charges and the consequences of the plea; that the plea was 

entered into freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently; and that there was a factual 

basis for her plea. Defendant was thereafter immediately sentenced in accordance with 

her plea agreement and awarded a total of 100 days credit for time served. 

On April 1, 2014, defendant filed a notice of appeal, challenging the sentence or 

other matters occurring after the plea. 

II

DISCUSSION

After defendant appealed, upon her request, this court appointed counsel to 

represent her. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 

Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the 

case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to 

conduct an independent review of the record.
4

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and she 

has not done so. 

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have 

independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error 

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. 

III

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ

P. J.

We concur:

KING

J.

MILLER

J.