1 

Filed 4/17/14 P. v. Brown CA3 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

(Sacramento) 

---- 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

CLARISSA BROWN, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

C074442 

(Super. Ct. No. 13F00085) 

 This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We 

shall affirm the judgment. 
2 

BACKGROUND 

 On January 3, 2013, defendant Clarissa Brown received property that had been 

stolen.1 In February 2013, an amended complaint was filed alleging two counts of first 

degree robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (a); 213, subd. (a)(1)(A);2 counts one 

and two.) 

 In April 2013, the amended complaint was amended by interlineation to allege, as 

count three, misdemeanor receiving stolen property. (§ 496, subd. (a).) Defendant 

pleaded no contest to count three and stipulated a factual basis for the plea. The plea was 

conditioned upon defendant’s payment of restitution to the persons named as victims in 

counts one and two in an amount to be determined. 

 In May 2013, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed 

defendant on informal probation for three years on the condition, among others, that she 

serve 180 days of incarceration with a total of 148 days of credit already accumulated. 

The trial court ordered defendant to make restitution to the victim or victims in an 

amount to be determined, and to pay a $140 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $140 

restitution fine suspended unless probation is revoked (§ 1202.44), and various other fees 

and assessments. Counts one and two were dismissed with a Harvey waiver3 for 

restitution. 

 In August 2013, the trial court heard and denied defendant’s motion to strike any 

order of restitution or restitution in an amount to be determined. The court rejected 

defendant’s argument that the plea agreement had not contemplated a Harvey waiver for 

 

1 Because the matter was resolved by plea and defendant was placed on informal 

probation without preparation of a probation report, our statement of facts is taken from 

the prosecutor’s oral motion to amend the complaint. 

2 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 

3 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. 
3 

restitution. The court also noted that at sentencing, after the People had moved to dismiss 

counts 1 and 2 with a Harvey waiver, the court had asked defendant whether she 

understood and accepted the terms and conditions of her probation and she had answered 

in the affirmative. 

DISCUSSION 

 We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening 

brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests that we review the record and 

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 

436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 

30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days has elapsed, and we 

have received no communication from defendant. 

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

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 DUARTE , J. 

We concur: 

 BUTZ , Acting P. J. 

 HOCH , J.