From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Brown

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Apr 10, 2018
B285426 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 10, 2018)

Opinion

B285426

04-10-2018

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RACHEL DARCY BROWN, Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA455007) THE COURT:

LUI, P.J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., HOFFSTADT, J. --------

Appellant Rachel Darcy Brown pled no contest to one count of child custody deprivation (Pen. Code, § 278.5, subd. (a)). She was sentenced to the upper term of three years in county jail. The remaining counts and allegations against her were dismissed. She was awarded 324 presentence custody credits. We appointed counsel for appellant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an "Opening Brief" in which no arguable issues were raised. On January 23, 2017, we advised appellant that she had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or arguments that she wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that it provides a factual basis for appellant's plea. After attending a hearing in family court regarding custody of her 10-year-old daughter, Athena L. (Athena), appellant told Athena's father that he would not see Athena again. Appellant then picked up Athena from school; appellant did not have custody of Athena at that time. The next day, appellant flew with Athena to Florida. Appellant told Athena to use a different name and birth date because the police were looking for them. A detective from Los Angeles flew to Florida to retrieve Athena.

We also conclude from our review of the record that there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying appellant's motion for new counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.

Appellant's attorney has complied with his obligations. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.


Summaries of

People v. Brown

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Apr 10, 2018
B285426 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 10, 2018)
Case details for

People v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RACHEL DARCY BROWN, Defendant and…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

Date published: Apr 10, 2018

Citations

B285426 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 10, 2018)