P. v. Rhodes

Filed 1/17/07  P. v. Rhodes 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

(Butte)

----

     On November 16, 2004, a police officer conducting a valid search seized 7.8 grams of methamphetamine, 1.3 grams of marijuana, two scales, two glass smoking pipes, and a marijuana smoking pipe from defendant Cathleen Amelia Rhodes. 

     On February 1, 2005, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant entered a no contest plea to possession of methamphetamine for sale.  (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.) 

     The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for 36 months. 

     On March 24, 2005, a petition was filed alleging defendant had violated a condition of probation by failing to report to her probation officer since February 28, 2005. 

     On October 18, 2005, defendant admitted the probation violation and the court revoked probation. 

     On November 8, 2005, the court imposed a midterm sentence of two years in state prison for the conviction.  Defendant appealed. 

     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 have elapsed, and we have 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.