Filed 7/16/24 P. v. Gonzalez CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CINTHIA ASUSENA GONZALEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

F087261

(Super. Ct. Nos. PCF418311, 

VCF435466)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Jennifer Conn 

Shirk, Judge.

Stephanie L. Gunther, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Detjen, J. and Peña, J.
2.

Appointed counsel for appellant Cinthia Asusena Gonzalez asked this court to 

review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People 

v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97.) Counsel filed 

an opening brief that sets forth the facts relating to this appeal.

Appellant was advised of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of 

the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no 

communication from appellant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a 

disposition more favorable to appellant, we affirm the judgment.

The following is a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the 

cases. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

Appellant drove off a road and through a fence, and the responding officer arrested 

her after she failed several field sobriety tests. Appellant pleaded no contest on 

October 14, 2021, to felony driving under the influence of alcohol, misdemeanor 

possession of methamphetamine, and driving when the privilege had been suspended for 

a prior driving under the influence conviction (People v. Gonzalez (Super. Ct. Tulare 

County, 2021, No. PCF418311)). The same day, appellant pleaded no contest to 

misdemeanor willful injury or harm to a child (People v. Gonzalez (Super. Ct. Tulare 

County, 2021, No. VCM397806)), domestic battery (People v. Gonzalez (Super. Ct. 

Tulare County, 2021, No. VCM394239)) and driving on a suspended license with driving 

under the influence prior convictions (People v. Gonzalez (Super. Ct. Tulare County, 

2021, No. VCM415494)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed 

appellant on a five-year term of probation conditioned upon serving 180 days in county 

jail as to case No. PCF418311, a four-year term of summary probation and 30 days in 

county jail as to case No. VCM397806, a five-year term of summary probation as to case 

No. VCM394239, and 105 days county jail as to case No. VCM415494.

Appellant was again arrested on March 6, 2022, for driving under the influence 

with her two children in the back seat. She pleaded no contest to felony driving with a 
3.

blood alcohol content in excess of 0.08 percent within 10 years of a previous conviction 

for the same offense and child abuse under circumstances likely to cause great bodily 

injury or death (People v. Gonzalez (Super. Ct. Tulare County, 2022, No. VCF435466))

and admitted to violating probation in case No. PCF418311. The trial court sentenced 

appellant to three years in state prison, suspended execution of the sentence, and placed 

appellant on a five-year term of probation as to both case No. VCF435466 and case 

No. PCF418311 (after terminating the earlier grant of probation), conditioned upon 

serving 364 days in county jail.

Appellant then requested a modification of her sentence to permit her to be 

released from custody to an inpatient program but failed to enroll in and complete the 

program in 2023. She admitted to violating her terms of probation in both cases. The 

trial court terminated probation and imposed the previously suspended three-year state 

prison term.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

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

ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a 

disposition more favorable to appellant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.