1

Filed 6/12/15 P. v. Holguin CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FELICIA M. HOLGUIN,

Defendant and Appellant. B258494

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA135664)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

Peter Paul Espinoza , Judge. Affirmed.

Marta I. Stanton, under appointme nt by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________________________2

Defendant and appellant Felicia M. Holguin appeals from a judgment of

conviction entered after a plea. Under th e terms of the plea agreement, Holguin pled no

contest to one count of felony vandalism over $400 (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a))

, 1 and

the trial court dismissed a count alleging misdemeanor vandalism under $400 and a count
alleging first degree residential burglary

. The court placed Holguin on formal probation

for three years on the condition that she serve 180 days in county jail. Appointed counsel

filed an opening brief pursuant to the procedures approved in People v. Wende (1979) 25

Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ). We affirm the judgment.

DISCUSSION

Holguin and Andres Mendoza ha ve two children; during 2014, they continued a

dating relationship. On June 16, 2014, Holguin went to Mendoza’s residence to drop off

the children. Holguin entered Mendoza’s residence wi thout permission while he was not

home. She broke Mendoza’s bedroom door, entered his bedroom, and took a television

which she then apparently trashed

. 2

T he People filed an information charging Holguin with misdemeanor van dalism

under $400 (count 1; § 594, subd. (a))

, residential burglary (count 2; § 459), and felony

vandalism over $400 (count 3; §594, subd. (a))

.
O n June 25, 2014, Holguin entered a plea of no contest to the felony vandalism

charge alleged in count 3 , and the trial court dismissed th e vandalism charge alleged in

count 1, and the residential burglary charge alleged in count 2. On the same date, the

court placed Holguin on formal probation for three years on condition she serve 180 days

in county jail. The court set a restitution hear ing for July 2014

. On July 24, 2014, the
trial court ordered Holguin to pay restitution to Mendoza in the amount of $531.70.

Holguin did not request nor obtain a certificate of probable cause.

1 All further undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

2 Because there was a plea in this case, the facts have been taken from the probation
off ic er’s report.3

Holguin filed a timely notice of appeal which expressly indi cated that the appeal

was “based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the

validity of the plea.”

We appointed counsel to represent Holguin on appeal. C ounsel filed a brief

pursuant to Wende, supra

, 25 Cal.3d 436, r equesting independent review of the record on

appeal for arguable issues. We thereafter notified Holguin by letter that s he could submit

any claim, argument or issues that s he wished our court to review. S h e has not filed any

claim or argument. We have independently reviewed th e record on appeal, and find that

appointed counsel has fulfilled h er duty, and that no arguable issues exist. ( Wende,

supra , 25 Cal.3d 436, People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

BIGEL OW, P. J.

We concur:

FLIER, J.

GRIMES, J.