P. v. Simpson
Filed 10/10/06 P. v. Simpson CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUANITA ELAINE SIMPSON, Defendant and Appellant. | B192345 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA062384) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Clifford L. Klein, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________________
Juanita Elaine Simpson appeals from an order revoking her probation and a judgment executing a previously suspended sentence.
On October 21, 2005 Simpson entered a negotiated plea of no contest to possession of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a). The trial court imposed the middle term of two years, suspended execution of sentence and granted Simpson three years of formal probation on condition she complete a one-year residential drug treatment program. On March 30, 2006 the court found Simpson in violation of probation for failing to complete the residential drug treatment program and ordered executed her previously suspended state prison sentence. On June 1, 2006 Simpson filed a notice of appeal.[1] She failed to request a certificate of probable cause.
We appointed counsel to represent her on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief“ in which no issues were raised. On September 15, 2006 we advised Simpson she had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues she wished us to consider. On September 29, 2006 Simpson filed a handwritten supplemental brief in which she essentially claims the evidence was insufficient to support either her conviction or the revocation of probation and her defense counsel provided ineffective assistance.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Simpson’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) By her plea of no contest Simpson waived her right to challenge the nature and sufficiency of the evidence presented at her preliminary hearing. (See People v. Turner (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 116, 126; People v. Wakefield (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 67, 69-71.) Accordingly, the issue is not cognizable on appeal. Furthermore, her failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause as required by Penal Code section 1237.5 and California Rules of Court, rule 30(b) renders her appeal inoperable as to that issue. (People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1096, 1099; People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 79.)
As for Simpson’s remaining contention, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding she did not complete the residential drug treatment program and therefore was in violation of the terms of her probation. (People v. Kurey (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 840, 848-849.) The record also fails to demonstrate defense counsel provided ineffective assistance at any time during the proceedings in the trial court. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 686 [104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674].)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
PERLUSS, P. J.
We concur:
JOHNSON, J.
ZELON, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
[1] Simpson’s notice of appeal was filed 62 days after entry of the order revoking probation and the judgment. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 30.1 (a) [notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days of verdict of judgment or entry of order being appealed].) Nonetheless, because she was a state prison inmate acting in propria persona, the prison-delivery rule may apply in this case. (See In re Jordan (1992) 4 Cal.4th 116, 130.) In light of our affirmance on the merits, we need not read the issue of the timeliness of her appeal.
