From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Daley

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Feb 3, 2020
F079138 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2020)

Opinion

F079138

02-03-2020

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANNIELLE ANNETTE DALEY, Defendant and Appellant.

Lynette Gladd Moore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. Nos. CRF53629, CRF53891, CRF55492, CRF57317)

OPINION

THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Donald J. Segerstrom, Jr., Judge. Lynette Gladd Moore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Meehan, J.

-ooOoo-

Appointed counsel for defendant Dannielle Annette Daley asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of her right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Defendant pled guilty to various drug charges in four cases:

On October 30, 2017, in case No. CRF53629, defendant pled guilty to maintaining a place for selling and/or using a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11366; count 1) and possession of methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378; count 2). The same day, in case No. CRF53891, defendant pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378; count 1), maintaining a place for selling and/or using a controlled substance (§ 11366; count 2), and possession of drug paraphernalia (§ 11364, subd. (a), a misdemeanor; count 3). She admitted committing counts 1 and 2 while out on bail in the prior case (Pen. Code, § 12022.1). The trial court referred defendant to the probation department for drug court evaluation.

All statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise noted.

On December 19, 2017, the trial court informed defendant she had been rejected for drug court because of her noncompliance.

On June 4, 2018, in case No. CRF55492, defendant pled guilty to sale of clonazepam or possession of clonazepam for sale (§ 11375, subd. (b)(1); count 1) and transportation for sale of methamphetamine (§ 11379, subd. (a); count 2).

On July 30, 2018, defendant requested appointment of counsel to prepare a motion to withdraw her pleas in all three cases. The trial court appointed counsel.

On August 27, 2018, counsel informed the court that the only case that potentially supported a motion to withdraw the plea was case No. CRF55492. The court noted withdrawal of one plea would affect all three cases.

On October 12, 2018, in case No. CRF57317, defendant pled guilty to maintaining a place for selling and/or using a controlled substance (§ 11366; count 1), possession of methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378; count 2), and possession of drug paraphernalia (§ 11364, subd. (a), a misdemeanor; count 3). She admitted committing counts 1 and 2 while out on bail in the prior cases (Pen. Code, § 12022.1). The trial court again referred defendant to the probation department for drug court evaluation.

On December 19, 2018, drug court appointed counsel for the purpose of withdrawing the plea, informed defendant she could not return to drug court due to her noncompliance and her "waffling around about drug court," and referred the case back to the regular court for sentencing.

On December 31, 2018, counsel informed the court he found no grounds for withdrawing the pleas. Defendant requested a Marsden hearing.

People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. --------

On February 4, 2019, the trial court held a Marsden hearing and denied defendant's motion to relieve counsel.

On February 11, 2019, the trial court sentenced defendant in all four cases. The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted five years' probation, with four months of jail time and six months in a residential treatment program. The court ordered various fines and fees.

On April 10, 2019, defendant filed notices of appeal in all four cases.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Daley

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Feb 3, 2020
F079138 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2020)
Case details for

People v. Daley

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANNIELLE ANNETTE DALEY…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Date published: Feb 3, 2020

Citations

F079138 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2020)