Filed 8/25/25 P. v. Martinez CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B339023 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA503878) v. HELEN MARTINEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Armenui A. Ashvanian, Judge. Affirmed.

Arielle Bases, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________ Helen Martinez engaged in a dispute with her neighbor over the course of two years and vandalized the neighbor’s property. After completing anger management classes and an Alcoholics Anonymous regimen, Martinez pleaded no contest to felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)) and stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. The court accepted the plea, found Martinez guilty as charged, dismissed a count of felony stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a)), and sentenced Martinez to probation and ordered her to pay $4,753.06 in restitution.

Martinez obtained a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5 and appeals her conviction.

We appointed counsel to represent Martinez. After examining the record, counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 raising no issues and asking us to independently review the record. We sent letters to Martinez and appointed counsel, directing counsel to forward the appellate record and brief to Martinez and advising Martinez she had 30 days to personally submit any contentions or issues she wished us to consider. Martinez did not respond.

After reviewing the record, we conclude appellate counsel complied with the responsibilities set forth in Wende and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 and find there are no arguable issues.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

We concur:

WEINGART, J.

M. KIM, J.