People v. Xirouhakis CA3 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • Filed 7/28/16 P. v. Xirouhakis 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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    (El Dorado)
    ----
    THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C080825
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. P12CRF0303)
    v.
    ANTONIOS DIMITRIOUS XIROUHAKIS,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    Appointed counsel for defendant Antonios Dimitrious Xirouhakis has 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 any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979)
    
    25 Cal. 3d 436
    .) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more
    favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of
    the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 
    40 Cal. 4th 106
    , 110, 123-124.)
    1
    Elicia Hill paid defendant $30,000 for five acres of land defendant claimed to
    own. Hill also paid defendant $20,000 for a second piece of land that he claimed to own.
    A few weeks later, defendant sent Hill a letter saying he did not own the land.
    Mary Lusi paid defendant $12,420 to remodel her kitchen, but defendant failed to
    perform the work. Lusi suffered $12,500 in additional damages related to defendant’s
    failure to complete the remodel, including hiring a contractor to repair and complete the
    work and purchasing a barbeque so that she could cook during the year-long remodel.
    Defendant was charged with attempt to file false or forged instrument (counts 1 &
    3; Pen. Code, § 115, subd. (a)); felony grand theft of personal property (counts 2, 4 & 5;
    Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)); felony unlawful use of a contractor’s license (count 6; Bus.
    & Prof. Code, § 7027.3) and misdemeanor contracting without a license (count 7; Bus. &
    Prof. Code, § 7028).
    Defendant pleaded no contest to counts 6 and 7. Per the parties’ agreement, the
    trial court placed defendant on three years’ probation. All the remaining counts were
    dismissed with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 
    25 Cal. 3d 754
    . The trial
    court imposed a $300 restitution fine and a stayed $300 probation revocation fine. (Pen.
    Code, §§ 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.44.) The trial court also awarded restitution of $30,000
    to Hill and $24,920 to Lusi, with $150 to be paid monthly to each victim.
    Defendant appeals without a certificate of probable cause.
    DISCUSSION
    We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
    brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to determine whether there are any
    arguable issues on appeal. (People v. 
    Wende, supra
    , 
    25 Cal. 3d 436
    .) Counsel advised
    defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of
    the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no
    communication from defendant. We have undertaken an examination of the entire record
    and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
    2
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    NICHOLSON   , Acting P. J.
    We concur:
    DUARTE             , J.
    RENNER             , J.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: C080825

Filed Date: 7/28/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021