Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. Nos. SCN199633, SCN2280197
Jones, P.J.
Barbara Polk appeals from an order revoking 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. Counsel also informed appellant that she had the right to file a supplemental brief on her own behalf. Appellant declined to exercise that right.
In November 2006, appellant pleaded guilty to transporting/selling heroin. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352.) The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation on the condition, inter alia, that she enroll in and complete a one-year residential drug program.
In the years that followed, appellant’s probation was revoked and reinstated four different times.
In March 2010, a motion was filed to revoke appellant’s probation yet again. The trial court conducted a contested revocation hearing where San Francisco Police Officer Antonio Santos testified. He stated that on February 26, 2010, shortly before 11:00 p.m., he saw appellant and a woman named Amina Harris struggling in the middle of the street. Harris appeared frightened and she was yelling at appellant to “‘give me back my money.’” As Santos watched, appellant balled her left hand into a fist and raised it over Harris. The two were then separated.
The trial court ruled appellant had violated her probation by committing an assault. Subsequently, the court sentenced appellant to the lower term of three years for her underlying conviction.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued. The trial court found appellant had violated her probation and its ruling is supported by substantial evidence. The trial court did not commit any prejudicial evidentiary errors. We see no error in the sentence. Appellant was effectively represented by counsel.
We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Needham, J., Bruiniers, J.