Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Mateo County Super. Ct. Nos. SC065639A & SC067951A
Margulies, Acting P.J.
Following her plea of no contest to felony petty theft with a prior conviction and admission of a probation violation, defendant was sentenced to 16 months in state prison. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, defendant appeals from the sentence imposed, asking this court to examine the record and determine if there are any issues deserving of further briefing. Counsel has notified defendant that she can file a supplemental brief with the court. No supplemental brief has been received. Upon review of the record, we conclude no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 29, 2008, a loss prevention officer at Sears in San Mateo observed defendant steal makeup and a home phone valued at $84.99.
An information was filed by the San Mateo District Attorney on January 27, 2009, in case No. SC067951, charging defendant with burglary in the second degree (Pen. Code, § 460, subd. (b); count 1), petty theft with a prior conviction (Pen. Code, § 666; count 2), and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a); count 3). It was further alleged defendant suffered two prior felony convictions both for a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377.
Prior to the filing of the information, a complaint was filed in case No. SC065639 on February 25, 2008, charging defendant with possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 1), and driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a); count 2). Defendant pleaded guilty to count 1, and count 2 was dismissed. Imposition of sentence was suspended, and defendant was placed on three years of supervised probation.
An affidavit of probation violation was subsequently filed on January 5, 2009, alleging defendant had violated the terms and conditions of her probation citing as grounds for the violation the Sears theft, and defendant’s failure to make payments on her fees and assessments. On January 29, 2009, the trial court revoked defendant’s probation.
Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, on March 27, 2009, in case No. SC067951, defendant pleaded no contest to petty theft with a prior conviction and admitted the two prior felony convictions. Defendant also admitted the probation violation in case No. SC065639. In exchange for her plea and admissions, the court indicated she would receive no more than two years in state prison with the probation violation sentence to run concurrent.
On April 24, 2009, the court denied probation in case No. SC067951 and sentenced defendant to the low term of 16 months in state prison along with a concurrent sentence of 16 months in case No. SC065639. Defendant received 117 days of presentence custody credit, plus 58 days for good behavior. The court also imposed mandatory restitution fines and ordered defendant to register as a narcotics offender and to submit to genetic marker testing.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISSCUSSION
We have reviewed the record on appeal. By entering a plea of no contest in case No. SC067951 and admitting the probation violation in case No. SC065639, defendant admitted the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the crime and the probation violation, and therefore is not entitled to review of any issue going to the question of her guilt or innocence. (People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 42.) Without a certificate of probable cause, defendant cannot contest the validity of her plea. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4)(B).) Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
Defendant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. We further find no indication in the record that counsel provided ineffective assistance.
We find no meritorious sentencing issues that would require reversal of the judgment. The court neither imposed a sentence that exceeded the maximum sentence indicated by the court nor abused its discretion by denying probation in case No. SC067951 based on defendant’s prior failure to comply with the terms and conditions of probation.
There are no issues that require further briefing. The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Dondero, J., Banke, J.