Opinion
C089906
05-18-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. IRITA MARIE LATHAM, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. CRF17-00754)
Appointed counsel for defendant Irita Marie Latham asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The People's April 26, 2017 complaint alleged defendant unlawfully took or drove a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count one) and received a stolen motor vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a); count two). Defendant pleaded no contest to count one in exchange for dismissal of count two. The parties also agreed that if defendant failed to complete a six-month residential treatment program, she would be sentenced to the low term of 16 months in local prison. Otherwise, she would be granted felony probation. The stipulated factual basis for the plea was that defendant took a Honda Civic recently purchased by the owner for more than $1,200.
Defendant failed to complete the treatment program and was sentenced to serve 16 months in local prison. The court imposed a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), and a $4 emergency medical air transportation fee (Gov. Code, § 76000.10, subd. (c)(1)). Defendant was awarded 151 days of actual custody credit and 150 days of conduct credit for a total of 301 days of credit.
Because defendant was sentenced to county prison without a period of mandatory supervision (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h)), the court did not impose a $300 parole revocation restitution fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45, subdivision (b). --------
Defendant timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of her right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
Having examined the entire record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Consequently, we affirm the judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
KRAUSE, J. We concur: HULL, Acting P. J. MURRAY, J.