Court Opinion

ID: 9947395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 19:02:41.57622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:24.628975
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/4/24 P. v. Cabrera 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                         (Butte)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C098907

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     (Super. Ct. No. 23CF00528)

           v.

 KELSEY LEANDRA CABRERA,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Kelsey Leandra Cabrera asked this court to
review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We will affirm.
                       FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
         Defendant and her two codefendants (one female and one male) were in a
polyamorous relationship. They all lived together, along with defendant’s three minor
children and her female codefendant’s two minor children. One of the children disclosed
that she and her siblings had been sexually abused in their home by the male codefendant.

                                                             1
He also physically abused some of the children. Defendant suspected that there was
inappropriate activity between her male codefendant and the children. After she and her
codefendants were arrested, defendant told the child not to talk to police.
       Defendant and her two codefendants were charged in a 42-count indictment.
Defendant was charged with three counts of child abuse (Pen. Code,1 § 273a, subd. (a);
counts 5, 6, and 7), one count of dissuading a witness from reporting a crime (§ 136.1,
subd. (b)(1); count 12), and one count of misdemeanor child abuse (§ 273a, subd. (b);
count 40).
       In April 2023, defendant pleaded no contest to counts 5, 6, 7, 12, and 40. She
waived her right to a jury trial or court trial regarding aggravating circumstances, and
instead agreed to permit the trial court to find aggravating circumstances based on the
police reports.
       During sentencing, defendant presented evidence that she had suffered abuse as a
child that caused her to abuse alcohol and methamphetamine throughout her life. She
also characterized her male codefendant as physically abusive.
       In May 2023, the trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for an aggregate
term of ten years eight months, as follows: the upper term of six years for count 5, one
year four months consecutive each for counts 6 and 7 (one-third the midterm), two years
consecutive for count 12 (one-third the midterm), and one year concurrent for count 40
with credit for time served.
       In imposing the upper term, the trial court noted it was required under
section 1170, subdivision (d) to consider a lower term sentence given defendant’s alleged
childhood trauma. However, the court found a lower term was not in the interest of
justice, nor was the middle term. The court noted defendant had previously participated

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                             2
in parenting and substance abuse programs through probation and children’s services that
would have educated her “about how to establish a healthy environment for children.”
Although defendant had resolved her current case early, the court noted that the crimes
involved “great violence, great bodily harm, constant threats of great bodily harm, and a
high degree of cruelty, viciousness and callousness.” The court found “no credibility” in
defendant’s statement that she was unaware that her male codefendant was sexually
abusing the female children in the home. In addition, the court observed defendant was
aware that codefendant had drugged two of the victims, and she had told the children not
to talk with authorities when they were detained. Further, defendant had at least once
personally used a leather whip and a wooden board to strike one of the victims. The
court concluded that because the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating
circumstances “in both their number and significance,” the upper term was appropriate.
       The court also imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a
corresponding $300 parole revocation fine (suspended unless parole is revoked)
(§ 1202.45), a $200 court operations fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $150 criminal
conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373).
       The trial court denied defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause on
appeal.
                                       DISCUSSION
       Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and
asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues
on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 436.) Defendant was advised by
counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the
opening brief. More than 30 days have 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.

                                              3
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                   /s/
                                                  Wiseman, J.*

We concur:

 /s/
Earl, P. J.

 /s/
Krause, 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.

                                              4