P. v. Anderson
Filed 10/23/07 P. v. Anderson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Yolo)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONDA KAY ANDERSON, Defendant and Appellant. | C055038 Super. Ct. Nos. CRF037238 CRF047616 |
This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.[1] Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment.
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, 124.) The facts underlying the offenses are taken from the probation report.
On November 18, 2003, narcotics agents served a search warrant on the home of defendant, Ronda Kay Anderson, and her husband. During the search, agents found .23 grams of marijuana, 1.34 grams of ice methamphetamine, packaging material, and drug paraphernalia. Defendant pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine in case No. CRF037238 and was placed on Proposition 36 probation. (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a); Pen. Code, 1210 et seq.)
On November 12, 2004, a petition for violation of probation was filed in case No. CRF037238, alleging defendant had violated her probation by failing to apprise the probation department of her current residence, failing to register as a drug offender, failing to enter and complete a drug treatment program and failing to report to the Office of Revenue and Reimbursement. Defendants probation was revoked and a warrant was issued for her arrest.
On December 7, 2004, defendant was again found in possession of methamphetamine. She pled guilty in case No. CRF047616 to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)), and was placed on Proposition 36 probation. Her probation in case No. CRF037238 was reinstated.
On September 19, 2006, petitions for violation of probation were filed in both cases, alleging defendant had violated her probation by failing to complete inpatient drug treatment and failing a drug test. After finding defendant in violation of probation, the court reinstated probation in both cases.
On November 7, 2006, petitions for violation of probation were filed in both cases, alleging defendant had violated her probation by failing to enter into and successfully complete a drug treatment program. A contested violation of probation hearing ensued, after which the court found defendant had in fact violated the terms and conditions of her probation. The court then declined to reinstate defendant on probation in case No. CRF037238, noting she had violated probation three times. (Pen. Code, 1210.1, subd. (f)(3)(C ).) The court also terminated probation in case No. CRF047616, after determining defendant was unamenable to treatment. (Pen. Code, 1210.1, subd. (f)(3)(B).)
The trial court continued sentencing so defendant could be assessed for admission into the Delancey Street Residential Drug Treatment Program. At sentencing, defendant informed the court she had been rejected from the program for health reasons. The court sentenced defendant to the middle term of two years in case No. CRF037238 and a consecutive eight months (one-third the middle term) in case No. CRF047616, for an aggregate term of two years eight months in state prison.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MORRISON , J.
We concur:
BLEASE , Acting P.J.
ROBIE , J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
[1] Counsel 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, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
