P. v. Knight
Filed 3/23/07 P. v. Knight CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, A115238
v. (MarinCounty
Super. Ct. No. SC145054)
KIMBERLY ANN KNIGHT,
Defendant and Appellant.
_______________________________________/
Kimberly Ann Knight appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court revoked her probation. Her counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Counsel also informed appellant that she had the right to file a supplemental brief on her own behalf. Appellant declined to file such a brief.
In January 2006, appellant pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine, (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)) tampering with a vehicle or its contents, (Veh. Code, 10852) and driving with a suspended or revoked license, (Veh. Code, 14601.2, subd. (a).)
On March 17, 2006, the trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation on the condition, inter alia, that she conduct herself in a law-abiding manner, report regularly to her probation officer, and participate in a treatment/therapy program if directed to do so by her probation officer. That same date, appellant signed a written waiver of her right to have any sentencing factors decided by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
On June 16, 2006, the district attorney filed a petition alleging appellant had violated her probation by being found in possession of drug paraphernalia. That same date, the probation department filed a second petition alleging appellant had violated her probation by failing to participate in a residential treatment program as directed by her probation officer, and by failing to report regularly.
At a hearing on July 7, 2006, appellant admitted the allegations in the district attorneys petition. On July 14, 2006, the court conducted a hearing on the probation departments petition and found the allegations to be true.
On July 21, 2006, the court declined to reinstate probation and sentenced appellant to the upper term of three years on her methamphetamine conviction and to concurrent terms of time served on her Vehicle Code offenses.
We have reviewed the record and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued.
Prior to accepting appellants admission at the July 7, 2006 revocation hearing, the court explained to appellant the constitutional rights she would be waiving. The court also explained to appellant the potential consequences of her admission. There was a factual basis for the admission.
The courts finding at the July 14, 2006 revocation hearing that appellant had violated her probation is supported by substantial evidence.
We find no error in the sentence.
Appellant was provided with adequate assistance of counsel.
We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Jones, P.J.
We concur:
________________________
Simons, J.
________________________
Gemello, J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
