P. v. Teaupa

Filed 6/26/05 P. v. Teaupa CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

Counsel for defendant Kalolaine L. Teaupa has filed an opening brief in which she raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have conducted that review, and finding no arguable issues, affirm the judgment.

Background

Defendant, who had a juvenile record stretching back to 1996, was arrested on January 17, 2004, when she and another young woman attempted to take merchandise worth approximately $1,000 from a Macy's store without paying for it. Defendant pleaded no contest to a charge of second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459[1]). She initialed and signed a plea form expressly waiving her rights to a speedy and public trial, to confront witnesses, and to subpoena witnesses. She also gave up her right against self-incrimination. She initialed the form's recitation of the consequences of entering the plea. She stated her understanding that the only promise made to her was that the court would impose no more than 120 days in jail as a term of probation. The court accepted her plea only after defendant stated, on the record, that she understood each of the rights she was giving up. The court ascertained that defendant had voluntarily signed the form and that her attorney agreed with her decision. There is no question but that there was a factual basis for defendant's plea.

The court then suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation on the conditions, among others, that she serve 90 days in county jail, that she report to and comply with all orders of the probation department, that she report any arrest within 48 hours, and that she not leave the state without permission. Defendant had an outstanding warrant in Arizona, so the court also ruled she could go to Arizona to clear the warrant if she reported to the probation department when she was going and when she anticipated returning. Defendant was ordered to report to county jail on October 18, 2004.

Defendant did not report to serve her sentence. On December 21, 2004, the probation department learned that she had left the state, and her family did not know where she was. Defendant later reported that she had gone to Nevada, and then to Washington, D.C. She was arrested in Washington, convicted of prostitution, and served a 30-day sentence. Defendant's actions unquestionably violated the terms of her probation, and on September 21, 2005, defendant signed a waiver form admitting that she had violated probation. The court questioned her about her admission, and ascertained that her decision was voluntary. Defendant's attorney joined in the admission. The probation department submitted a â€