Court Opinion

ID: 9396921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 22:03:36.89625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:20.183210
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/23/23 P. v. Recla 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                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
                                                                                             F085164
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                              (Super. Ct. No. 20CR-07378)
                    v.

    ROBIN RECLA,                                                                          OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT *
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. David W.
Moranda, Judge.
         Michele A. Douglass, 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 Peña, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and Meehan, J.
       Appointed counsel for defendant Robin Recla 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.) Defendant was advised of her right to file a supplemental brief within
30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond. Finding no
arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.
                                    BACKGROUND
       In 2018 and 2019, defendant convinced several victims to invest about $300,000
in a restaurant she claimed she was starting in Los Banos. Instead of starting a restaurant,
however, she embezzled most of the money. She then filed a fraudulent tax return,
failing to claim any of that money as income.
       On October 22, 2021, the Merced County District Attorney filed a first amended
complaint charging defendant with five counts of grand theft by embezzlement
(Pen. Code, §§ 504, 487, subd. (a);1 counts 1–5) and filing a false or fraudulent income
tax return (Rev. & Tax Code, § 19706; count 6). As to counts 1 through 5, the complaint
further alleged the crimes constituted aggravated white-collar crimes in which the related
crimes caused a loss exceeding $100,000. (§ 186.11, subd. (a)(3)).
       On April 26, 2022, defendant filed a motion for pretrial mental health diversion
pursuant to section 1001.36. On May 18, 2022, the prosecution filed an opposition. On
May 20, 2022, after hearing argument on the motion, the trial court denied the motion.
       On May 25, 2022, defendant pled no contest to counts 1 and 6, with a maximum
exposure of two years eight months. The remaining counts were dismissed with a
Harvey2 waiver.

1      All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
2      People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.

                                             2.
       On August 17, 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant to the middle term of
two years in prison on count 1, plus eight consecutive months on count 6. The court
imposed various fines and fees, including over $300,000 in victim restitution.
       On October 18, 2022, defendant filed a notice of appeal. The trial court granted
her request for a certificate of probable cause.
                                       DISCUSSION
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of
any arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                              3.