P. v. Roberts
Filed 5/4/07 P. v. Roberts CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NINA ROBERTS, Defendant and Appellant. | E040793 (Super.Ct.Nos. FVA022870, FVA017111 & FVA021842) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Douglas M. Elwell, Judge. Affirmed.
Harry Zimmerman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On June 12, 2002, pursuant to Penal Code section 1192.5, defendant pled guilty to a violation of Health & Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a), possession of cocaine, in exchange for Penal Code section 1210.1 treatment.[1] Pursuant to the plea agreement, if defendant was found ineligible or if she failed to complete the program, she would be committed to state prison for 16 months. Defendant was thereafter sentenced in accordance with the negotiated disposition to three years of a formal grant of probation.
On March 5, 2003, a petition was filed seeking to revoke defendants probation based on her non-attendance at treatment and failure to keep an appointment with probation. Thereafter, defendant admitted the violation and the trial court reinstated defendants probation of May 14, 2003. A second petition to revoke defendants grant of probation was filed October 16, 2003, because defendant failed to appear for her probation appointment and her whereabouts remained unknown. Defendant admitted the violation and the trial court reinstated defendants probation on October 28, 2003. A third petition to revoke probation was filed March 23, 2004, for failing to enroll in a drug treatment program and the trial court preliminarily revoked probation.
Case Number FVA 021842
A new criminal complaint was filed May 4, 2004, again alleging possession of cocaine and a prison prior. (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a); Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b), in case No. FVA021842. A bench warrant was issued for defendants arrest.) Defendant was arraigned on that case on May 5, 2004, and she entered a not guilty plea and denial as to all counts.
On May 27, 2004, pursuant to Penal Code section 859a, defendant admitted her violations of probation as well as pleading guilty to her most recent charges. Defendant also entered a guilty plea to a pending misdemeanor offense in case No. 439594. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the prior conviction was stricken on motion of the district attorney. Defendant was also found to be in violation of her drug treatment program and her grant of probation was reinstated on its original terms and conditions with the latest term concurrent to the previous term.
New petitions to revoke probation were filed July 7, 2004, based on defendants failure to complete her drug program by leaving the residential drug treatment facility. Defendant failed to appear for a hearing on September 14, 2004; probation was revoked and a bench warrant was issued for her arrest.
Case Number FVA022870
A new felony complaint again charged defendant with possession of cocaine and a prison prior. (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a); Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b).)
On October 14, 2004, again pursuant to Penal Code section 859a, defendant admitted her most recent, second, drug-related probation violation and entered a guilty plea to a violation of Health & Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a), possession of cocaine. The plea bargain again called for probation under Proposition 36 and a further agreement that she would be revoked and reinstated on Proposition 36 probation for case numbers FVA017111 and FVA021842.
Once again, new petitions to revoke a grant of probation were filed January 11, 2005, based on defendants failure to appear for scheduled probation officer appointments, failure to enroll in an approved treatment program, and failure to submit proof of Narcotics Anonymous meeting attendance.
The formal probation revocation in this case hearing took place on April 22, 2005. Defendant also faced additional misdemeanor charges. Following defendants testimony, the trial court revoked defendants probation in all three felony cases. She was ordered to undergo drug court screening and on May 10, 2005, the trial court ordered defendant to drug court. Defendant admitted all probation violations; her probation was reinstated, and she was ordered into the drug court rehabilitation program.
Thereafter, defendant was terminated from the drug court program on December 7, 2005. Defendant failed to appear for a supplemental report hearing on January 18, 2006. The trial court ordered her probation revoked and issued a bench warrant for her arrest.
Defendants new sentencing hearing took place April 28, 2006. Following a closed hearing, the trial court denied appellants request pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. Defendants probation was again formally terminated. She was committed to state prison for two years in case number FVA17111 and mid-terms of two years in case numbers FVA21842 and FVA22870 to run concurrent to the initial case number. Defendant was awarded the appropriate custody credits in all cases.
Defendant appealed, and upon her request this court appointed counsel to represent her. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which she has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
RICHLI
J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
[1] Penal Code section 1210 defines the drug treatment a defendant must complete as part of probation granted pursuant to Proposition 36 (2000), the California Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000. (Pen. Code, 1210.1; People v. SuperiorCourt (Henkel) (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 78, 81.)
