People v. Dolida

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RACHELLE MARIE DOLIDA, Defendant…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Date published: Dec 20, 2011

H036971 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2011)

Opinion

H036971

12-20-2011

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RACHELLE MARIE DOLIDA, Defendant and Appellant.

Mihara

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C1087947)

Defendant Rachelle Marie Dolida was charged with possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a) - count 1), using or being under the influence of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a) - count 2), and possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364 - count 3). The felony complaint also charged four prison prior enhancements under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Defendant pleaded no contest to all three counts and admitted the prison prior enhancements. The trial court placed defendant on probation and ordered her to enter a substance abuse program. The trial court later reduced count 1 to a misdemeanor.

In December 2010 and March 2011, the trial court found that defendant had violated the terms of her probation. In April 2011, defendant requested that treatment under Proposition 36 be terminated. The trial court placed defendant on probation, and ordered her to serve 180 days in county jail with credit for 67 days. The trial court also ordered that probation be terminated upon completion of the county jail sentence.

Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no issues. Defendant was notified of her right to submit written argument on her own behalf, but she has failed to avail herself of the opportunity. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

________

Mihara, J.

WE CONCUR:

_____________

Premo, Acting P. J.

______

Elia, J.