Court Opinion

ID: 9913800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-28 20:02:17.286208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:01:08.578906
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/28/23 P. v. Best CA4/1
                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 THE PEOPLE,                                                          D082018

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. SCS318714)

 DARLENE RICHARD BEST,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Maryann D’Addezio, Judge. Affirmed.
         Stephanie A. Lickel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

         A jury convicted Darlene Richard Best of violating Penal Code,1
section 487, subdivision (a). The court granted probation and imposed an
$820 fine pursuant to section 1465.7, subdivision (a), a $40 operations

1        Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
assessment, a $41 theft fine under section 1202.5, and a restitution fine to be
determined.
      Best filed a timely notice of appeal.
      Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any
arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to
independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered
Best the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not
responded.
                          FACTUAL BACKGROUND
      Appellate counsel has provided an accurate summary of the evidence
produced at trial. We will utilize that summary for background purposes.
      Best moved into Continental Condominiums in 1998. After living in
the property for about two weeks, Best discovered that the roof was leaking.
The management company for the property made a “substandard fix” and the
roof was never adequately repaired.
      At some point, Best was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. This has
resulted in her fainting without warning, muscle deterioration, and loss of
motor skills. In 2006, Best had to give up her job as a nurse due to the illness
and was put on Social Security disability at the age of 52. As the disease
progressed, Best’s memory problems became more severe.
      In 2012, Best requested, once again, that the Homeowner’s Association
(HOA) board fix the roof of her condo. The entire HOA board quit that same
year. At that point, Best took over as the HOA president and was the only
board member for some time.
      Due to the plethora of responsibilities, Best set up automatic payments
through the HOA’s account for San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). Some of

                                        2
the SDG&E payments that were charged to the HOA account included Best’s
meter. These automatic SDG&E payments took place on November 20, 2014,
January 29, 2015, March 20, 2015, and “up to 2016 sometime.” In total, the
payments amounted to around $4,600.
      Some checks for Art’s Incorporated, the company that provided the
HOA with a portion of the revenue from the washing machines on the
property, were deposited into Best’s personal savings account at the Wells
Fargo Bank. The first check, $226.75, was deposited to Best’s account on
September 6, 2013. The second check, $232.12, was deposited to the account
on October 11, 2013. A third check, $195, and fourth check, $203, were
deposited at some point between October of 2013 and January of 2015. The
fifth and final check, $150.50, was deposited on January 8, 2015.
      In 2015, Best opened a checking account purposed for the HOA funds
at Wells Fargo Bank. On March 14, 2015, an HOA check was deposited into
the checking account for $10,342.87. Other HOA checks were also deposited
into the same checking account. Between March 16 and March 31, 2015,
$12,210.70 was deposited into this checking account.
      On March 19, 2015, Best withdrew $300 in cash from this HOA
checking account. On that same day, she made an in bank branch cash
withdrawal of $10,000 from the same HOA checking account. On March 30,
2015, a $200 cash withdrawal was taken from the same account.
      At some point in 2015 an additional $6,585.12 worth of HOA checks
were deposited into the Wells Fargo savings account belonging to Best. After
that deposit, $5,018 was withdrawn from the same personal savings account.
In April of 2015, there were several more withdrawals from Best’s Wells
Fargo savings account. Overall, in 2015, $27,658.74 was deposited into Best’s
personal Wells Fargo savings account and the HOA funds checking account

                                      3
she opened and $27,133.00 was withdrawn from the same two accounts that
same year.
        Best resigned from the board at some point in 2015, due to the stress of
the position. On December 5, 2017, two members of the HOA board reported
Best’s alleged embezzlement.
        On November 12, 2019, the first criminal complaint was filed against
Best.
                                  DISCUSSION
        As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks
the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in
its review of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967)
386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified possible issues that were
considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: (1) Was the
charge under section 487, subdivision (a) within the statute of limitations;
(2) Did the giving of jury instructions CALCRIM Nos. 1802 and 3501 cause
jury confusion; (3) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in permitting
testimony of the forensic expert; (4) Was defense counsel’s failure to introduce
medical expert testimony constitute ineffective assistance of counsel; and
(5) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Best’s request to reduce
the felony charge to a misdemeanor.
        We have reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and
Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
Competent counsel has represented Best on this appeal.

                                        4
                             DISPOSITION
     The judgment is affirmed.

                                           HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

KELETY, J.

CASTILLO, J.

                                  5