Filed 8/7/17 P. v. McAllister CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ELIZABETH M. MCALLISTER,
Defendant and Appellant.

A150788

(Mendocino County
Super. Ct. No. 1580806)


Elizabeth M. McAllister appeals from a judgment revoking her felony probation and sentencing her to the two-year middle term for the underlying offense of failing to appear under Penal Code section 1320, subdivision (b) , to be served locally pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h). Her court-appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no issues, but seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We find no arguable issues and affirm.
Appellant entered her guilty plea in March 2015, in exchange for an initial grant of probation and the dismissal or reduction of charges pending in other cases. Probation was revoked and reinstated four times during the next year and a half, for violations including an arrest in a domestic violence case, failure to comply with substance abuse conditions, failures to appear, and positive tests for methamphetamine and opiates.
On November 22, 2016, a fifth petition to revoke appellant’s probation was filed alleging she had tested positive for methamphetamine and had submitted a monthly report to her probation officer that did not show her correct physical address. Appellant admitted the positive drug test, and the probation officer and district attorney recommended she be sentenced to the three-year aggravated term for the underlying conviction of section 1320, subdivision (b). The court instead imposed the two-year middle term at the urging of defense counsel, stating the crime was “kind of a run-of-the-mill failure to appear.” Appellant filed a notice of appeal and sought a certificate of probable cause, which was denied by the court. (See § 1237.5.)
As required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124, we affirmatively note appointed counsel has filed a Wende/Anders brief raising no issues, appellant has been advised of her right to file a supplemental brief, and appellant did not file such a brief. We have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find none.
Because the trial court denied appellant’s request for a certificate of probable cause, issues concerning the validity of her admission to the probation violation are not properly before us. (People v. Sem (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1186–1188.) As to matters occurring subsequent to the admission, the court did not abuse its discretion by either declining to reinstate probation following multiple violations or by imposing the two-year middle term. (See People v. Sperling (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1094, 1102; People v. Downey (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 899, 909–910.)
We are satisfied that appellant’s appointed attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of appellate counsel and that no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 283.)
The judgment is affirmed.




NEEDHAM, J.



We concur.




JONES, P.J.




SIMONS, J.