Filed 12/29/25 P. v. Solomon 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F089900 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F22907475) v. HOPE SOLOMON, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Michael G.

Idiart, Judge.

Michele A. Douglass, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Detjen, J. and Meehan, J.

Appointed counsel for appellant, Hope Solomon, asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the case’s relevant facts.

Appellant was advised of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days.

More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from appellant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to appellant, we affirm the judgment.

Following is a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

In October 2022, appellant was charged with one count of felony vandalism (Pen.

Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)) for damaging a window belonging to the Fresno County Superior Court. After multiple continuances, appellant pleaded no contest to the charge.

Appellant was sentenced to two years of formal probation with four days in the Fresno County Jail and four days of presentence custody credit. Appellant was further ordered to pay a stipulated restitution amount of $2,000, along with other fees and assessments.

This appeal timely followed.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

2.