Opinion
A113643
12-1-2006
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MAUREEN MICHELLE HENDERSON, Defendant and Appellant.
Appellants counsel filed an opening brief in which he raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
BACKGROUND
According to the probation report filed with the trial court, appellant was arrested on July 6, 2005, after a shop owner notified police of a shoplifting theft. She was apprehended as she fled the scene and was found in possession of articles taken from the store, as well as small quantities of marijuana and methamphetamine. After being given Miranda warnings, appellant readily admitted using methamphetamine intravenously.
Previously, on March 25, 2004, appellant had pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and was given three years probation pursuant to Proposition 36 (Pen. Code, § 1210.1), in case No. CR041485. A few months later, on October 26, 2004, she admitted to violating the terms of her probation three times. One of the violations arose from this new case (No. CR053365), which charged Henderson with three counts of petty theft with a prior (Pen. Code, § 666), one count of possession of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (a)), and one count of being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd, (a)).
After she had admitted her probation violations and entered a guilty plea to counts 1 through 4 (case No. CR053365), the court again placed Henderson on probation in the former case and sentenced her to a stipulated term of five years, with execution of the sentence suspended.
On December 20, 2005, appellant was back in court for failing to enter a drug treatment program, and again admitted violating the terms of her probation. As a result, on February 9, 2006, the court terminated probation (No. CR041485) and ordered the five-year prison term executed. However, on February 21, 2006, the court relented after the parties stipulated that appellant fit the description of a person who is a narcotics addict or in danger of becoming one.
The trial court again imposed the five-year sentence, stayed it under section 654, specified appropriate statutory fines, and awarded custody credits. The court committed appellant to the California Rehabilitation Center for treatment as an addict pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051.
This timely appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Our independent review of the record reveals no arguable issues.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
KLINE, P.J.
RICHMAN, J.