1

Filed 7/18/24 P. v. Vantassel 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

(Yuba)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CARISSA DAWN VANTASSEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

C099500

(Super. Ct. Nos. CRF2300189, 

CRF2002561, CRF2200845)

Appointed counsel for defendant Carissa Dawn Vantassel filed an opening brief 

that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine 

whether there are arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) 

Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, 

we will affirm the judgment.
2

BACKGROUND

On April 15, 2021, defendant was sentenced in Butte County Superior Court to 

three years for possession of counterfeiting “dies.” (Pen. Code, § 480, subd. (a).) On 

December 6, 2021, defendant was released from Butte County jail and began mandatory 

supervision with a discharge date of December 7, 2023. 

On October 8, 2021, defendant resolved case No. CRF2002561 in Yuba County 

Superior Court by pleading no contest to identity theft. (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a).) 

She stipulated as the factual basis of the plea that she committed identify theft by 

possessing multiple identification cards, California driver’s licenses, and other documents 

containing personal identifying information from various individuals who did not know 

defendant, did not give her permission to have these documents, and reported many of the 

licenses and documents stolen. She agreed that she intended to use these items for an 

unlawful purpose to procure goods or services. On January 31, 2022, the trial court 

suspended imposition of the sentence and placed defendant on two years of formal 

probation. 

On March 3, 2022, defendant’s mandatory supervision in the Butte County case 

was transferred to Yuba County Superior Court as case No. CRF2200845. 

On January 13, 2023, defendant was arrested while driving a U-Haul van, which 

she claimed to have rented from a man outside a U-Haul facility. When contacted by a 

police officer, a U-Haul employee reported that the van was stolen. Review of 

surveillance video showed a female breaking into the building, taking the keys, and 

driving off in the van. 

On January 24, 2023, in Yuba County Superior Court case No. CRF2300189, 

defendant was charged with taking a vehicle without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. 

(a); count I), grand theft of an automobile (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (d)(1); count II), 

receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d; count III), and possession of 

methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count IV). 
3

On March 3, 2023, the probation department filed a petition for revocation of 

probation in case No. CRF2002561 and revocation of mandatory supervision in case No. 

CRF2200845. 

On July 25, 2023, in exchange for a stipulated two-year sentence, defendant 

pleaded no contest to taking a vehicle without consent in case No. CRF2300189 and 

admitted violating probation in case No. CRF2002561 and violating mandatory 

supervision in case No. CRF2200845. On August 28, 2023, the trial court sentenced 

defendant accordingly. 

Defendant timely appealed and did not request a certificate of probable cause.

DISCUSSION

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural 

history of the case and requests this court review the record and determine whether there 

are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant 

was advised by counsel of her right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the 

date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not 

filed a supplemental brief.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find 

no arguable errors that are favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we will affirm the 

judgment.
4

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 /s/

Duarte, J.

We concur:

 /s/

Earl, P. J.

 /s/

Wiseman, J.



 Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by 

the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.