P. v. Marshall
Filed 6/14/06 P. v. Marshall 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMIE L. MARSHALL, Defendant and Appellant. |
F048916
(Super. Ct. No. CRF16397)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Eric L. DuTemple, Judge.
Allan E. Junker, 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-
On February 28, 2005, appellant Jamie L. Marshall pled guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). Pursuant to the plea agreement, imposition of sentence would be suspended and Marshall would be placed on Proposition 36 probation. On April 5, 2005, the court placed Marshall on Proposition 36 probation for five years.
On July 22, 2005, the probation officer filed an affidavit that Marshall had violated the terms of probation by being absent from a scheduled group session. On August 11, 2005, the court conducted a contested hearing and found the allegation true. The court revoked probation and then reinstated its original terms. Appellant appeals from the violation of probation hearing.
Marshall'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 Marshall was advised she could file her own brief with this court. By letter on January 3, 2006, we invited Marshall 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 San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Apartment Manager Lawyers.
* Before Harris, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Gomes, J.
