Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR-531193
Siggins, J.
Adrea Fraley appeals following her no contest plea to a single count of possession of methamphetamine for sale (with an enhancement for a prior controlled substances conviction). Counsel has briefed no issues and asks for our review of the record of the proceedings. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Fraley has filed two supplemental letter briefs that raise no issues requiring further briefing. We have reviewed the record and affirm.
According to the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing, which Fraley and the prosecution later stipulated would serve as the basis for her no contest plea, an undercover detective served a narcotics-related search warrant at Fraley’s residence, where she was present with her boyfriend/caretaker. In the living room where Fraley was sitting, the detective found methamphetamine and a digital scale designed to look like a CD case, along with packaging material made from a torn plastic shopping bag. He also noticed a TV monitor that appeared to display a “live feed” from a surveillance camera mounted outside the residence and pointed at the front door/driveway area. In the attached garage, police found another live feed monitor and “a functioning police scanner.” Fraley’s cell phone and land line were “ringing continuously” during the hour and a half the detective was in the house. He estimated that she received approximately 30 calls during that period. Fraley later told the detective “most of those callers were prospective customers to buy methamphetamine.”
Additional monitors were also found in the bedrooms and the kitchen.
After receiving her Miranda rights, Fraley told the detective “that she’d been selling methamphetamine for approximately three years to supplement her income.” Fraley said she typically sold up to an ounce a day, and had made approximately three sales on the day the warrant was executed. Following the preliminary hearing, a one-count information charged Fraley with possession of methamphetamine for sale and an enhancement due to her prior conviction for possession of a controlled substance for sale.
After the court obtained Fraley’s waiver of her Boykin/Tahl rights, Fraley entered her no contest plea to possession of methamphetamine for sale, and admitted the prior conviction enhancement, with the understanding that the court would consider striking it and would evaluate options for her sentence that ranged from probation to six years in state prison. The presentence report prepared by the probation department recommended that Fraley receive a six-year state prison sentence, consisting of the three-year upper term for the methamphetamine conviction and an additional three years for the prior conviction enhancement.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated it had read “all the letters in support of Ms. Fraley as well as the supplemental letter that she wrote to the court and the medical records that were attached therein.” Defense counsel also drew the court’s attention to Fraley’s comment to the probation officer that “her medical situation was such that she could not receive the constant care and attention either in county jail or the state prison that is required to maintain her precarious health.”
When defense counsel requested community treatment instead of prison time, the court responded that Fraley “was placed on probation for a parallel offense back in 2002. Her probation was violated twice because of continuing usage. So since 2002 she’s had an opportunity to avail herself of community resources to assist in this addictive behavior. It is only upon recommendation of the Probation Department that she go to prison for six years, that she decided suddenly six years later after the original arrest in 2002 to take advantage of these community resources. [¶] Secondly I will note that th[is] is not necessarily an addiction offense[,] it’s an allegation of possession for sale, and also there is trafficking involved which makes it all the more concerning to this court. And I note that for six years now she’s been given an opportunity to address this problem and she’s failed to do so.” After Fraley made a personal statement and denied she “ha[d] a problem,” the court reiterated “that [she] needed to take responsibility and accountability for [her] actions.” The court concluded: “I have examined all the circumstances concerning this matter and I feel that it is time for you to understand that your actions merit a prison sentence.”
Over the district attorney’s objection the court struck the prior conviction enhancement and imposed a two-year midterm sentence for the methamphetamine conviction. The court also imposed a $20 court security fee and a $200 restitution fine, and stayed imposition of a $200 parole revocation fine. Fraley timely appealed.
The record does not include a request for a certificate of probable cause, and Fraley’s notice of appeal indicated it is based on her sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.
Fraley’s first supplemental letter brief states that the sentencing court “was not made aware of several conditions medically,” and that she “pled to the charge at a pretrial hearing without clear understanding of the sentencing laws.” But the record shows Fraley was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and was advised of her rights and the potential consequences of her plea. Fraley’s concerns about her medical needs were mentioned in the presentence report that was considered by the court in imposing her sentence. To the extent Fraley claims to have unmet medical needs in prison any potential relief would be sought by Fraley’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. Fraley acknowledges her care has so far been “satisfactory.”
The presentence report also noted Fraley “appears not to gather the seriousness of this case, as she largely focuses on how her medical issues can be accommodated and minimized the extent of her participation in the sales of narcotics.”
Fraley’s second supplemental letter brief draws our attention to her disagreement with certain factual statements made during the pretrial proceedings and in the probation officer’s report. Although she feels “[her] sentence was a bit harsh,” Fraley ultimately acknowledges “[her] conviction for [her] involvement in the [allegedly] shared possession of the methamphetamine was valid.” Nothing in the record suggests that the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced Fraley to the middle term of two years in state prison without an enhancement for her prior crime. There was no error in the sentence imposed. Full review of the record reveals no issue that requires further briefing.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Pollak, Acting P. J., Jenkins, J.