P. v. Belisle
Filed 7/24/07 P. v. Belisle CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SANDRA ANN BELISLE, Defendant and Appellant. | A114768 (Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. CR002112) |
Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, appellant Sandra Ann Belisle pled guilty to first degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459, 460) on condition that there be no immediate State Prison. Consistent with the negotiated disposition, appellant was granted probation on certain terms and conditions. After a series of probation violations, reinstatements and modifications of probation, and extension of the probationary term, the trial judge revoked probation and sentenced appellant to the aggravated term of six years in state prison.
Former counsel for appellant, William Mount, filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. After filing the Wende brief, former counsel was relieved because of an alleged conflict of interest and new counsel, Stephanie L. Clarke, was appointed. Also, appellant was granted 60 days to file a supplemental opening brief, if she desired to do so. Neither an opening brief from new counsel nor a supplemental opening brief by appellant has been filed.
This court has conducted the requested review of the record and concludes that there are no arguable issues. Appellant was represented throughout the proceedings by counsel. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation and sentencing appellant to state prison on her admission of a violation of probation. There was no Cunningham[1] error in the imposition of the aggravated term because the trial court relied upon appellants recidivism: [R]elying upon the prior convictions are of increasing seriousness, the defendants prior convictions; she was on probation at the time the offense was committed; and her prior performance on probation was unsatisfactory. (See Almendarez-Torres v. United States (1998) 523 U.S. 224, 243.) Appellants plea was validly entered.
Judgment affirmed.
_________________________
Reardon, Acting P.J.
We concur:
_________________________
Sepulveda, J.
_________________________
Rivera, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
[1]Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. ___ [127 S.Ct. 856].
