Filed 9/27/17 P. v. Henderson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Butte)
----
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JESSICA KAY HENDERSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
C083566
(Super. Ct. No. CM032759)
|
Appointed counsel for defendant Jessica Kay Henderson 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 will affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
In the early evening on September 15, 2010, law enforcement officers conducted a welfare check on defendant’s home. They asked defendant where her children were. She said her daughter was at a friend’s house and her toddler son was in his bedroom. When she went to her son’s bedroom, he was not there. Defendant, along with the officers searched the house but could not find defendant’s son. They moved their search outside and found defendant’s son playing near a wood pile and heavy equipment, wearing only a diaper. Defendant submitted to a blood test that revealed her blood-alcohol level to be .082 percent. She was immediately arrested.
The People charged defendant with child abuse. (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a).)[1] Defendant pleaded no contest. The trial court granted defendant four years of formal probation and, along with numerous other conditions of probation, ordered her to serve 90 days in county jail. The court also ordered defendant to pay numerous fines and fees.
Defendant subsequently admitted to violating the terms of her probation four times. Each time, the trial court reinstated her probation. On July 25, 2013, as a condition of being accepted into drug court, defendant waived the custody credits she had earned to that point, as well as any future credits she may earn while in a residential treatment program. The court also extended her probation from four to five years.
On May 6, 2015, the trial court sent defendant to the Department of Corrections for a 90-day diagnostic evaluation before reinstating her probation on September 16, 2015.
On August 31, 2016, the trial court ordered defendant into a residential treatment program. On September 1, 2016, defendant entered that program but left the program without permission on September 30, 2016. She was arrested, and on November 9, 2016, defendant admitted to violating her probation for the fifth time. This time, the trial court refused to reinstate probation and sentenced defendant to serve the middle term of four years in state prison. The court affirmed the prior orders for fees, striking those the court found defendant now lacked the ability to pay, lifting the stay on the probation revocation fine, and imposing but staying a parole revocation fine of $200 (§ 1202.45). The court also awarded defendant 504 days of custody credit.
Defendant appeals. Her request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.
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 the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/
HOCH, J.
We concur:
/s/
RAYE, P. J.
/s/
ROBIE, J.
[1] Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
