Opinion
F063061
10-15-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRANDIE ANNE BOYENGA, Defendant and Appellant.
Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. PCF183163)
OPINION
THE COURT
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Gary L. Paden, Judge.
Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
PROCEEDINGS
On August 27, 2008, appellant, Brandie Anne Boyenga, was placed on Drug Court Probation for five years after pleading no contest to second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). As a condition of probation, appellant was ordered to successfully complete a drug treatment program.
On February 28, 2011, appellant failed to appear at a Drug Court Review Hearing. Her probation was revoked and a warrant issued for her arrest. On June 13, 2011, appellant appeared and admitted violating the terms of her probation. She was ordered to serve 60 days in jail for failing to appear. On June 20, 2011, appellant requested to be removed from drug court.
On August 5, 2011, the trial court sentenced appellant to jail for 180 days with credit for 49 days served. Because appellant was sentenced in August 2008, the court denied appellant's request for half-time credits. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant's counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
APPELLATE COURT REVIEW
Appellant's appointed counsel has filed an opening brief that summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to review the record independently. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that appellant was advised she could file her own brief with this court. On February 16, 2012, a letter was sent from this court inviting appellant to file her own brief with this court. To date, she has not done so.
After independent review of the record, we have concluded there are no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Detjen, J.