P. v. Eckley

Filed 2/8/06 P. v. Eckley CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Gary Friedman, Judge.

Christine Vento, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

After a jury trial, appellant Jeanette Eckley was convicted of one count of felony child abuse and one count of misdemeanor child abuse. Eckley was sentenced to prison for four years and appealed to this court. In a published opinion, we found substantial inaccuracies in four documents provided for sentencing. We vacated Eckley's sentence and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing to ensure that the material inaccuracies in the documents submitted to the court would not affect Eckley's sentence. (People v. Eckley (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1081.)

On March 30, 2005, after a continuance, the trial court conducted a new sentencing hearing. A new probation report was prepared for the hearing. After hearing argument from the parties, the trial court found a single mitigating factor from Eckley's lack of a criminal record. As aggravating factors, the court found Eckley took advantage of a position of trust and that she was a social worker and violated the very laws she was mandated to support. The court denied Eckley's request for probation. The court sentenced Eckley to prison for the low term of two years on appellant's felony conviction and ordered her to pay a restitution fine. The court granted Eckley credit for time already served and ordered the recalculation of Eckley's parole date.^[1]

Eckley's appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that Eckley was advised she could file her own brief with this court. By letter on September 1, 2005, we invited Eckley to submit additional briefing. To date, she has not done so.

After independent review of the record, we have concluded no reasonably arguable legal or factual argument exists.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

Publication courtesy of Spring Valley Boundary Dispute Attorney ( www.mcmillanlaw.us ) and Spring Valley Lawyers Directory ( www.fearnotlaw.com )

^*Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Gomes, J.

^[1] At the time of the new sentencing hearing, Eckley was already on parole. The court explained to Eckley the consequences of violating her parole. The court imposed a concurrent term of six months on the misdemeanor conviction.