Opinion
D070184
12-27-2016
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DESIREE PERCHEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Steven S. Lubliner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. JCF35965) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Ruth B. Montenegro, Judge. Affirmed. Steven S. Lubliner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Desiree Perchez entered into a plea agreement under which she pleaded no contest to one count of felony transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379). The parties agreed she would be placed on probation with credit for time served.
The trial court granted probation, consistent with the plea agreement. Perchez objected to the wording of one probation condition, however, the court modified the condition to respond to the objection.
Perchez filed a timely notice of appeal from matters occurring after the plea.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating he has not been able to discover any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Perchez the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal but she has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Perchez and a companion were detained as they attempted to cross the United States border into Mexico. They were found to be in possession of methamphetamine, marijuana and cash.
DISCUSSION
At the sentencing hearing defense counsel objected to the requirement that Perchez attend Narcotics Anonymous because it is a faith based program. At counsel's request, the condition was modified to permit Perchez to select an alternate program which provides the same rehabilitative services.
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief asking this court to review the record for error. Counsel has not strictly complied with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) because counsel has not identified specific issues that might be arguable. However, we are still able to conduct a meaningful review of the record for error. Counsel did discuss the sentencing process and the dispute over attending a narcotics treatment program. Counsel's other discussions of the record and trial court process have adequately assisted this court in conducting our review. We are satisfied the purpose of counsel's assistance to the reviewing court, arising from Anders, has been satisfied.
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. We have not discovered any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
O'ROURKE, J. /s/_________
AARON, J.