P. v. Ferris
Filed 3/29/06 P. v. Ferris CA3
Received for posting 5/3/06
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Tehama)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JANICE LYNN FERRIS, Defendant and Appellant. | C050731
Super. Ct. Nos. NCR63749 NCR64921
|
On January 31, 2005, defendant Janice Lynn Ferris, who was on probation in Tehama County case No. NCR63749 for possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), admitted violating her probation by failing to obey all laws, to maintain contact with her probation officer, and to participate in a drug treatment program. Sentencing was continued to February 28, 2005.
On February 10, 2005, defendant was charged in Tehama County case No. NCR64921 with possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)). On February 28, 2005, pursuant to a negotiated settlement, defendant pled guilty to the possession charge and the being under influence charge was dismissed.
Defendant was sentenced to state prison for two years eight months--two years in case No. NCR63749 and a consecutive effective term of eight months in case No. NCR64921.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 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. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
MORRISON , Acting P.J.
We concur:
ROBIE , J.
BUTZ , J.
Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Escondido Apartment Manager Lawyers.
