Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. CM025378
BLEASE, Acting P. J.
Social workers were referred to the home of defendant Frances Elena Guerra, where they found the victim, defendant’s seven-year-old daughter, L.O., a severely disabled child diagnosed with cerebral palsy, hydrocephalus and seizure disorders, close to death due to severe malnutrition, sustained neglect and failure to provide medical care. The victim was ultimately removed from defendant’s home, hospitalized and later placed in foster care.
The victim, whose developmental age is that of a three- to six-month-old infant, is fed through a “G-tube” placed in her stomach and is unable to communicate verbally, walk, or assist in her own basic care. Consequently, she is completely dependent on defendant as her primary caregiver.
Defendant was charged with, and pled guilty to, felony child abuse (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a); further undesignated references are to this code) and admitted a special allegation that she personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The court denied probation and sentenced defendant to the middle term of four years, plus three years for the serious bodily injury enhancement, for an aggregate sentence of seven years in state prison. The court imposed a $1,400 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $1,400 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45) stayed pending successful completion of parole, and a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8), ordered restitution to the victim, reserving jurisdiction over the amount to be paid, and recommended that defendant attend drug and alcohol counseling while in custody. Defendant was granted relief from untimely filing of the notice of appeal.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error in favor of defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: BUTZ, J., CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.