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Filed 7/18/24 P. v. Vantassel CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Apr il 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 t o 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 sentenc e 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 whil e 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 rev ocation 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 fil ed 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 co unsel 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 W ende , 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.