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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
SELENA CRAIN,
Defendant and Appellant.
A114197
(San FranciscoCounty
Super. Ct. No. 190233
This appeal has been taken from a judgment that found defendant in violation of probation, revoked her probation, and imposed a four-year state prison term. Defendant claims her counsel was incompetent for failing to object to the trial court's failure to recognize its discretion to reinstate her probation. We find that the trial court was aware of its discretion to reinstate defendant's probation, and correctly decided to instead impose a state prison term. We therefore conclude that defense counsel did not render ineffective representation, and affirm the judgment.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 7, 2003, defendant entered a plea of guilty to one count of transportation of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)), and admitted the accompanying special enhancement allegation that she offered to sell cocaine base (Pen. Code, § 1203.073, subd. (b)(7)). In September of 2003, imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for three years. Conditions of her probation included provisions that required her to stay 150 yards away from 6th and Jessie and Taylor and Eddy Streets, submit to drug testing, and not possess any controlled or unlawful drugs without a prescription. The stay away condition was subsequently modified to provide â€
Description
This appeal has been taken from a judgment that found defendant in violation of probation, revoked her probation, and imposed a four year state prison term. Defendant claims her counsel was incompetent for failing to object to the trial court's failure to recognize its discretion to reinstate her probation. Court find that the trial court was aware of its discretion to reinstate defendant's probation, and correctly decided to instead impose a state prison term. Court therefore conclude that defense counsel did not render ineffective representation, and affirm the judgment.
