Opinion
D075103
09-04-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTINA T. SANCHEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Kenneth J. Vandevelde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. SCD275335) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Esteban Hernandez, Judge. Affirmed. Kenneth J. Vandevelde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In July 2018, Christina T. Sanchez pleaded guilty to one count of stalking with a court order in effect (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b)), and one count of violating a court order (§ 273.6, subd. (a)).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. --------
Sanchez was sentenced to a term of four years in prison, the execution of sentence was suspended, and Sanchez was granted probation subject to various conditions.
Sanchez admitted violating the terms of probation on October 24, 2018, and November 21, 2018. In each instance probation was revoked and then reinstated on the same terms and conditions.
Sanchez filed a timely notice of appeal from the probation revocation decisions.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel has not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. He asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Sanchez the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In September 2018, Sanchez contacted the victim in violation of the terms of her probation. In November 2018, Sanchez failed to keep the battery of her GPS device charged as required by the terms of her probation.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, indicating he has not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error. To assist this court in its review of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has submitted the following possible issue: Whether the custody credits were properly calculated.
We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Sanchez on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR: DATO, J. GUERRERO, J.