Opinion
C053704
11-14-2007
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDREA LYNETTE McCOY, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
This matter involves three consolidated San Joaquin County Superior Court cases and comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 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 reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of each case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
Case No. SF94816A
On January 27, 2005, defendant attempted to cash a stolen and altered third-party check, and falsely identified herself to police. Thereafter, she twice failed to appear for her preliminary hearing. She was charged by information in case No. SF94816A with forgery (Pen. Code, § 470, subd. (d)), receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), two counts of failing to appear (§ 1320, subd. (b)), and misdemeanor giving false identification to a peace officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a)). Defendant pled no contest to forgery and guilty to one count of failing to appear in exchange for five years of formal probation, six months in the county jail, and dismissal of the remaining charges. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, placed defendant on five years formal probation, on the condition, among others, that she serve 180 days in jail, and imposed a $200 restitution fine, plus a 10-percent administrative fee (§ 1202.4, subds. (b), (l)). Defendants probation was revoked and reinstated after she failed to report to jail.
These facts are taken from the preliminary hearing transcript, which the parties stipulated could be used to establish a factual basis for defendants plea.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Case No. SF97189A
On August 16, 2005, during a consensual search, police found 1.5 grams of rock cocaine in defendants possession. Defendant was charged in case No. SF97189A with possession of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) Defendant pled guilty as charged in exchange for Proposition 36 probation. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, placed defendant on five years of formal probation on the condition, among others, that she report to "Prop 36" within two days of being released from jail, and imposed a $200 restitution fine, plus a 10-percent administrative fee. Defendants probation was revoked and reinstated after she failed to report to "Prop. 36" as directed.
Case No. SF98174A
On November 9, 2005, defendant was seen driving a stolen car. She was charged in case No. SF98174A with unlawful driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496d, subd. (a)). Defendant pled guilty to receiving a stolen vehicle in exchange for probation, 120 days in county jail, dismissal of the remaining charge, and a promise by the People not to file any additional charges. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, placed defendant on five years of formal probation, on the condition, among others, that she serve 120 days in county jail, and imposed a $200 restitution fine, plus a 10-percent administrative fee. Defendants probation was revoked and reinstated after she failed to report to jail as directed.
Revocation of Probation and Imposition of Sentence
On November 1, 2005, probation filed a petition alleging defendant violated her probation in case No. SF94816A by failing to report to probation after being released from custody on September 14, 2005.
On November 30, 2005, probation filed a petition alleging defendant violated her probation in case No. SF97189A by failing to report to "Prop. 36" on November 17, 2005.
On March 13, 2006, probation filed petitions alleging defendant violated her probation in cases Nos. SF94816A and SF98174A by failing to obey all laws by "commit[ing] a violation of [s]ection 476 [making, passing, or possessing a fictitious bill, note or check]" on February 21, 2006.
On March 15, 2006, probation filed a petition alleging defendant violated her probation in case No. SF98174A by failing to report to probation on December 22, 2005.
On April 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, and 24, 2006, the trial court held a contested hearing on the outstanding probation violation allegations in all three cases. The following evidence was adduced at the hearing: On September 14, 2005, defendant failed to report to probation as directed in case No. SF94816A. On December 22, 2005, defendant failed to report to probation as directed in case No. SF098174A. A second letter was mailed directing her to report on March 28, 2006, and she failed to report on that date. Defendant never appeared for "Prop. 36" as directed in case No. SF97189A. On February 21, 2006, defendant attempted to pass an altered third-party check at Wal-Mart using false identification. The check had been issued by San Joaquin County, was made payable to someone other than defendant, and had been reported missing.
On April 25, 2006, the trial court sustained the allegations and found defendant in violation of her probation in all three cases.
At the sentencing hearing on September 11, 2006, defendant declined "Prop. 36" in case No. SF97189A, and the trial court sentenced her to an aggregate term of two years in prison, consisting of: two years for forgery and a concurrent two years for failing to appear in case No. SF94816A, with credit for 446 days (298 actual and 148 good conduct); a concurrent two years for possession of a controlled substance in case No. SF97189A, with 356 days credit (238 actual days and 118 good conduct); and a concurrent two years for receiving stolen property in case No. SF98174A, with credit for 337 days (225 actual days and 112 good conduct). The trial court imposed a $200 parole revocation fine in each case (§ 1202.45), consistent with the previously imposed restitution fines; reserved jurisdiction on the issue of victim restitution in case Nos. SF94816A and SF98174A; a $135 "criminal laboratory fee" (Health & Saf. Code, § 11371.5, subd. (a) [$50 criminal laboratory analysis fee]; § 1464, subd. (a) [$50 state penalty assessment]; Gov. Code, § 76000 [$35 county penalty assessment]) in case No. SF97189A; and ordered defendant to register as a narcotics offender in case No. SF97189A.
On June 13, 2006, proceedings in all three cases were suspended, and defendant was placed in a diagnostic facility for a period not to exceed 90 days pursuant to section 1203.3. On September 7, 2006, proceedings were reinstated.
Having reviewed the record, we have discovered no arguable issue that would result in a disposition more favorable to the defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We Concur:
HULL, J.
BUTZ, J.