From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Howard

Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, Division Two.
Nov 17, 2003
A103157 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2003)

Opinion

A103157.

11-17-2003

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KIMBER-LEE J. HOWARD, Defendant and Appellant.


Kimber-Lee Howard appeals from the revocation and then reinstatement of her probation. Appellants court appointed counsel has briefed no issues and asks this court to review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

In October 2002, the court suspended imposition of sentence in two separate matters, placing appellant on probation for a period of three years for second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459; Sonoma County Case No. SCR-32233) and forgery (§ 470; Sonoma County Case No. MCR-403500).

In March 2003, the court granted the probation departments motion to summarily revoke appellants probation in both matters based on the allegations that appellant left her court-ordered residential substance abuse counseling program and absconded.

Appellant admitted violating the terms of her probation as alleged.

The court revoked and then reinstated appellants probation in each matter with the additional conditions that appellant serve a year in the county jail and that probation terminate upon the completion of appellants period of incarceration. In Sonoma County Case No. MCR-403500, the court granted appellant 368 days total presentence credit and in Sonoma County Case SCR-32233, 26 days total presentence credit.

Appellant has filed in propria persona a supplemental brief in which she apparently wishes to question the amount of credit for time served she received in Sonoma County Case No. SCR-32233. The record before this court does not demonstrate any error in the calculation of appellants credits for that matter.

Appellant also alleges that the probation officer who prepared the sentencing report and the judge who imposed the sentence should have recused themselves because they had a personal bias against appellant. Appellant failed to raise any of her concerns at the time sentence was imposed. In addition, appellants allegations are based on matters not contained within the record, and, therefore, even if the issue were meritorious, it could not be raised on direct appeal.

Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.

Appellants probation revocation hearing comported with the due process requirements of People v. Vickers (1972) 8 Cal.3d 451.

There was no sentencing error.

There are no legal issues that require further briefing.

The order revoking and then reinstating appellants probation under modified terms is affirmed.

We concur: Kline, P. J., Lambden, J. --------------- Notes: All statutory references are to the Penal Code


Summaries of

People v. Howard

Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, Division Two.
Nov 17, 2003
A103157 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2003)
Case details for

People v. Howard

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KIMBER-LEE J. HOWARD, Defendant…

Court:Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, Division Two.

Date published: Nov 17, 2003

Citations

A103157 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2003)