Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Solano County Super. Ct. Nos. FCR230154, FCR259440.
SIMONS, J.
Defendant Antoinette Morgan Florez was placed on probation after pleading no contest to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) in case No. FCR230154, and petty theft with a prior conviction (§§ 666, 484, subd. (a)) in case No. FCR259440. In August 2010, she admitted violating the terms of her probation and was sentenced on both offenses to a total prison term of three years eight months. Defendant’s counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has not filed a supplementary brief. We find no arguable issues and affirm.
All undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.
BACKGROUND
In March 2006, the Solano County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant in case No. FCR230154 with second degree robbery (§ 211) and other offenses. The charges arose out of allegations that defendant, acting in conjunction with others, robbed a man after luring him into a motel room. Defendant pled no contest to the robbery count, the other counts were dismissed, and the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three years of probation.
In September 2008, a complaint was filed in case No. FCR259440, charging defendant with one count of petty theft with a prior conviction (§§ 666, 484, subd. (a)) and one count of unauthorized possession of a syringe (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 4140). The charges arose out of allegations that defendant shoplifted from a clothing store. The complaint alleged that defendant’s robbery conviction in case No. FCR230154 qualified as a prior theft conviction within the meaning of section 666.
In March 2009, defendant pled no contest to the petty theft charge and the other charge was dismissed. In August, the trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed defendant on “zero-tolerance” probation for four years. Defendant waived the custody credits she had accrued and was warned that the credits would not be subtracted from any prison sentence should probation be revoked. Defendant was directed to participate in a drug treatment program as one of the conditions of probation.
In October 2009, the probation department requested revocation of probation and issuance of a bench warrant. The probation officer alleged defendant was discharged from her treatment program prior to successful completion of the program. In August 2010, defendant admitted violating the terms of her probation by failing to complete a treatment program.
In January 2011, defendant was sentenced in case Nos. FCR230154 and FCR259440 to a total prison term of three years eight months, consisting of the three-year midterm on the robbery charge and a consecutive eight months for the petty theft.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the entire record and have found no arguable appellate issues. Defendant was adequately represented by legal counsel throughout the proceedings. Defendant completed plea forms that described the constitutional rights she was waiving by entering the two no contest pleas. Defendant freely and voluntarily pled no contest to the robbery and petty theft charges. Defendant also completed a waiver of rights and freely and voluntarily admitted violating her probation by failing to complete a treatment program.
The trial court explained in detail its decision to impose a prison term in January 2011. The trial court’s decision not to reinstate probation was not an abuse of discretion in light of defendant’s well-documented failures to comply with the conditions of probation and, in particular, to successfully complete a drug treatment program on probation. In deciding to impose the midterm on the robbery charge, the trial court noted that aggravating circumstances included the vulnerability of the victim and the planning involved. The trial court’s sentence on the section 666 charge was proper under section 666, subdivision (b). The total prison term imposed by the trial court was appropriate in light of the facts of the case.
Appellate counsel advised defendant of her right to file a supplementary brief to bring to the court’s attention any issue she believed deserved review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Defendant did not file a supplementary brief. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: JONES, P.J., NEEDHAM, J.