Opinion
D070039
09-11-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MELODIE LAREA TRAVIS, Defendant and Appellant.
Leslie A. Rose, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. Nos. SCD249922, SCD258609) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia A. Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed. Leslie A. Rose, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Travis's appointed counsel has filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, and inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). After having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.
II.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Procedural background
In 2013, Travis pled guilty to one count of commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) in case No. SCD249922 in exchange for dismissal of the balance of charges against her and the prosecutor's nonopposition to Travis serving her sentence in local custody. At sentencing, the trial court placed Travis on probation and imposed probation terms and conditions.
Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
The charges pending against Travis at the time were one count of forgery, in violation of section 475, subdivision (a), one count of forgery, in violation of section 475, subdivision (c), and one count of forgery of checks, in violation of section 470, subdivision (d).
Approximately a year after Travis was placed on probation, her probation was summarily revoked. On November 4, 2014, Travis admitted having violated her probation, in that she committed a new offense, as charged in case No. SCD258609.
With respect to case No. SCD258609, Travis pled guilty to unlawfully driving/taking a vehicle, in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a). A second count was dismissed. The court indicated that it would release Travis on her own recognizance pending sentencing as to both cases.
Travis had also been charged with receiving stolen property, in violation of section 496d.
Travis appeared for sentencing on December 22, 2014. With respect to case No. SCD249922, the court reinstated probation with the same terms and conditions as originally ordered. With respect to case No. SCD258609, the court placed Travis on probation for a term of three years, and gave her 53 total days of custody credit.
The credits that Travis was awarded at this time consisted of 27 actual days, plus 26 days of good conduct credit.
At some point in 2015, Travis filed a petition pursuant to section 1170.18 as enacted by Proposition 47, seeking resentencing as to case No. SCD249922. The court denied Travis's petition without prejudice, concluding that her offense "involved disqualifying facts."
Travis's petition is not in the record on appeal.
On March 11, 2015, Travis's probation was summarily revoked. Approximately three weeks later, the court formally revoked probation and then reinstated it.
On June 11, 2015, Travis's probation was again revoked. On July 6, Travis denied that she had violated the terms of her probation, and probation was summarily revoked that day. Travis eventually admitted to violating the terms of probation, and the court again reinstated her term of probation. At that point in time, Travis received 44 days of actual time credit and 44 days of good conduct credit in case No. SCD258609, and 105 days of actual time credit and 104 days of good conduct credit in case No. SCD249922.
On November 23, 2015, Travis's probation was again revoked. On December 16, Travis denied having violated the terms of her probation, and her probation remained summarily revoked. On January 8, 2016, Travis admitted having violated the terms of her probation. Travis appeared for sentencing on February 5, 2016. At that point in time, the trial court declined her request to continue her on probation. With respect to case No. SCD258609, the court imposed the low term of 16 months, and awarded Travis a total of 296 days of total presentence custody credit. With respect to case No. SCD249922, the court imposed a low term of 16 months, and awarded Travis a total of 433 days of total presentence custody credit. The court ordered the sentences to run concurrently.
Travis filed timely notices of appeal as to both cases. B. Factual background underlying both cases
Given the procedural history of these cases, including Travis's guilty pleas, we take the factual background from the probation reports. --------
1. Case No. SCD249922
Travis entered a Wells Fargo Bank in San Diego and presented a check to cash. Travis was listed as the payee on the check, which was made out in the amount of $555. The bank teller noticed that the check appeared to have been "washed," in that there were faint ink lines on the check and some numbers seemed to be in different handwriting. An investigation revealed that a few days prior to the day that Travis presented the check for cashing, the account holder on the check had written a check in the amount of $55, payable to Costco. The account holder had placed the check in an envelope and had clipped the envelope to his mailbox for pickup by a postal service employee.
2. Case No. SCD258609
In early September 2014, victim Oscar Decumos reported that his vehicle had been stolen from in front of his residence. Ten days later, officers located Decumos's vehicle and effectuated a stop. After pulling over the vehicle, officers noticed that Travis was operating the vehicle without a key. The vehicle's steering column and ignition area appeared visibly damaged.
III.
DISCUSSION
Travis's appellate counsel has filed a brief, pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, in which counsel raises no issues on appeal and requests that we independently review the record. Counsel has identified the following issues that "might arguably support the appeal" (Anders, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744): (1) "Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying probation and imposing the low term sentence on both cases?" (2) "Were appellant's credits calculated correctly?" and (3) "Was appellant's attorney ineffective?" (Boldface & additional capitalization omitted.) We offered defendant the opportunity to file a brief on her own behalf. She has not responded.
A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.
IV.
DISPOSITION
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AARON, J. WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. DATO, J.