Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. Nos. 07F04857, 07F08499, 08M09390
SCOTLAND, P. J.
In May 2007, Sacramento police officers stopped a car in which defendant Kaniah McCauley was a passenger. A search authorized by a condition of her probation yielded.20 grams of methamphetamine.
In September 2007, Sacramento police officers again stopped a car in which defendant was a passenger. A probation search yielded Vicodin pills for which she did not have a prescription.
In November 2007, defendant pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); case No. 07F04857) and possession of hydrocodone (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a); case No. 07F08499). Imposition of sentence was suspended, and she was placed on probation for four years on conditions including 270 days of incarceration, with credit for 63 days and participation in Proposition 36 drug treatment.
In May 2008, defendant admitted she violated her probation by committing new drug offenses. Probation was reinstated, and she was ordered to appear in court in August 2008 for a progress report.
In August 2008, defendant failed to appear for the court hearing, and a warrant was issued for her arrest.
On or about September 6, 2008, defendant resisted officers and falsely identified herself to them. She was taken into custody.
On September 12, 2008, defendant appeared in court and admitted she violated her probation by not appearing in court, failing to report to her probation officer, and missing drug tests.
On September 22, 2008, in case No. 08M09390, defendant pled guilty to falsely identifying herself to a police officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a)) and resisting a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). It was stipulated that she would be incarcerated for two consecutive terms of 15 days.
Finding defendant unamenable for the Proposition 36 drug treatment program in case Nos. 07F04857 and 07F08499, the judge referred her to drug court. She was also referred to drug court for the new case and was ordered to return to court for a progress report on drug court participation.
In October 2008, defendant failed to appear in court for the drug court progress report, and a warrant was issued for her arrest.
In November 2008, after being arrested on the bench warrant, defendant appeared in court and admitted she violated her probation in both cases by committing a new drug offense. She was ordered to serve 60 days in jail, in addition to 270 days originally ordered, with the time stayed pending successful completion of drug court probation. (Case No. 07F08499.)
On December 8, 2008, defendant failed to appear in court as ordered, and the court directed that she be deleted from the drug court program.
On December 15, 2008, in case No. 07F08499, defendant was ordered to serve 330 days in jail, with credit for 68 days. In case No. 07F04857, probation was reinstated with no additional jail time. In case No. 08M09390, probation was denied, and defendant was ordered to serve 30 days with credit for 23 days.
In January 2009, defendant’s request to serve her jail time on the sheriff’s work program was denied.
Defendant appeals, and we appointed counsel to represent her on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the 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.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: ROBIE, J., BUTZ, J.