P. v. Loretto
Filed 5/23/06 P. v. Loretto CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
(Shasta)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SHERRI LYNN LORETTO, Defendant and Appellant. | C051153 (Super. Ct. Nos. 04F8061 & 05F5557) |
In April 2005, defendant Sherri Lynn Loretto pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine. (Case No. 04F8061.) Imposition of sentence was suspended, and defendant was placed on probation on conditions that included completion of a Proposition 36 drug treatment program and payment of a $200 restitution fine, a $20 administrative fee, a $157.50 laboratory analysis fee including penalty assessments, and a $20 court security fee.
In April 2005, defendant admitted violating probation by not reporting to the probation officer as directed and by failing to participate in drug treatment. Probation was revoked but reinstated on the original terms and conditions, plus service of 30 days of incarceration.
On August 1, 2005, defendant admitted violating probation by failing to timely report to the probation department. Probation was revoked but reinstated on the original terms and conditions, plus service of 60 days of incarceration.
On August 11, 2005, defendant pled guilty to bringing a controlled substance into jail (case No. 05F5557) and admitted violating her probation in case No. 04F8061 by failing to obey all laws.
In case No. 05F5557, defendant was sentenced to state prison for two years and ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine, a $20 administrative fee, and a $20 court security fee. In case No. 04F8061, she was sentenced to state prison for eight months, to be served consecutively to the term imposed in case No. 05F5557, and was awarded 59 days of custody credit and 28 days of conduct credit. Previously ordered conditions and fees remain due and owing. And in each case, she was ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked.
Execution of sentence was suspended and defendant was committed to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for placement at the California Rehabilitation Center.
Defendant appeals, and we appointed counsel to represent her on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us 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 have 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.
SCOTLAND , P.J.
We concur:
DAVIS , J.
BUTZ , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Apartment Manager Lawyers.
