Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR257423
Siggins, J.
Defendant Francechot Louis Finley appeals from a judgment imposed after revocation of probation. Her counsel has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of her right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. We have reviewed the entire record, conclude that no arguable issues are presented, and affirm the judgment.
DISCUSSION
A complaint was filed in July 2008 charging defendant with felony writing of a check with insufficient funds, and alleging that she had previously been convicted of forgery and receiving stolen property. (Pen. Code, § 476a, subd. (b).) In October 2008, defendant pleaded no contest to the check-writing offense and admitted the prior convictions. She stipulated that she had written bounced checks to Food 4 Less, Best Buy, Costco, and Anthony’s Electric, for $104, $122, $437, and $4,586, respectively. Sentencing was continued with the understanding that the offense would be reduced to a misdemeanor if defendant made restitution to the victims within six months.
Defendant failed to appear at the next hearing, on June 19, 2009, and a bench warrant was issued. On July 1, defendant appeared, the bench warrant was recalled, and sentencing was continued to July 28, 2009. At the July 28 hearing, the court stated that it was imposing an upper term sentence of three years, and suspending execution of the sentence; the court’s minute order states that imposition, as well as execution, of the sentence was suspended. The court placed defendant on probation for four years, on conditions including service of 120 days in county jail and payment of restitution.
In December 2009, defense counsel advised that defendant wished to withdraw her no contest plea, and new counsel was appointed to investigate grounds for withdrawal of the plea. Later that month, defendant’s probation officer reported that defendant had violated probation; probation was summarily revoked and a bench warrant was issued on January 6, 2010.
Defendant returned to court the next day, and admitted violating probation by failing to maintain contact with the department and submit to drug testing. The court continued the hearing on withdrawal of the plea to February 8, 2010, and requested a supplemental probation report. Defendant filed a motion to withdraw her plea, and the probation officer submitted “[a]n extremely guarded recommendation for continued probation.”
At the February 8 hearing, the court denied the motion to withdraw the plea, revoked probation, and gave defendant the option of being sentenced to two years in prison, or continued on probation by accepting “a suspended three-year term... with a full waiver of all credits in the event of a future violation of probation.” On February 11, 2010, defendant elected to remain on probation, confirmed her agreement to waive credits, and was continued on probation for three years.
This offer of a reduced sentence, from the same judge who purported to pronounce judgment on July 28, 2009, indicates that the court’s intent at that earlier date was to suspend imposition, not execution, of the sentence. (See People v. Howard (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1081, 1095 [“if the court has actually imposed sentence, and the defendant has begun a probation term representing acceptance of that sentence, then the court has no authority, on revoking probation, to impose a lesser sentence at the precommitment stage”]; People v. Ramirez (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1424-1425.)
In May 2010, the probation officer reported that defendant had again violated probation. A bench warrant was issued and probation was summarily revoked. Defendant returned to court on September 30, 2010, and was remanded to custody. On October 4, 2010, defendant admitted violating probation by using alcohol, and failing to maintain contact with the department.
On November 30, 2010, the court imposed a three-year prison sentence, awarded defendant 253 days of credit notwithstanding her credit waiver, and ordered her to pay restitution to the victims.
Defendant was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. Denial of the motion to withdraw the plea was not an abuse of discretion. Defendant admitted violating probation, and there was no error in the sentencing. No issue requires further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: McGuiness, P.J., Pollak, J.