Opinion
A131331
08-19-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANGELENE CASTRO, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR277600)
Appellant Angelene Castro appeals from an order reinstating her probation. Her counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that she had the right to file a supplemental brief on her own behalf. Appellant declined to exercise that right.
On September 17, 2010, appellant pleaded no contest to one count of possessing methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377.) The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation for a term of three years. Among the terms of appellant's probation, she was required to attend and complete a drug and alcohol treatment program.
Appellant's probation was revoked and reinstated. On January 21, 2011, authorities moved to revoke appellant's probation yet again alleging she had been terminated from her treatment program.
A contested revocation hearing was conducted on February 4, 2011. The prosecutor presented evidence that appellant had been terminated from her treatment program. Appellant also testified and she admitted she had been terminated, but claimed she recently had been readmitted.
The trial court ruled appellant violated her probation by being terminated from her treatment program. The court then reinstated probation on the similar terms and conditions.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued. The trial court found appellant violated her probation and its finding is supported by substantial evidence. We see no prejudicial evidentiary rulings. Appellant was adequately represented by counsel. We see no error in the order reinstating probation.
We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
The order is affirmed.
Jones, P.J. We concur: Needham, J. Bruiniers, J.