Opinion
E070789
10-19-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ARIELLE ELIS POINDEXTER, Defendant and Appellant.
John F. Schuck, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. FMB17000577) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Rodney A. Cortez, Judge. Affirmed. John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 12, 2017, a complaint charged defendant and appellant Arielle Elis Poindexter with grand theft of property "exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950)" pursuant to Penal Code section 487, subdivision (a) (count 1). The complaint also alleged that defendant suffered two prior prison terms under section 667.5, subdivision (b).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. --------
On November 21, 2017, defendant executed a plea form indicating intent to enter a plea to the grand theft charge and admit the prison priors. The plea form showed a sentencing range of "16, 2, 3" for the grand theft charge, and one year each for the two prison priors. A condition of the plea was that, "[i]f defendant is not accepted into mental health court[,] she may withdraw her plea."
At the plea hearing, the trial court stated, "[Y]ou're pleading guilty to felony grand theft—carries up to 1 year county jail, 16 months, 2 years, 3 years county prison." Defendant replied that she understood. Thereafter, defendant entered a guilty plea as follows:
"[Court]: In case FMB17000577 charging you with felony grand theft under Penal Code Section 487 sub (a), how do you plea?
"[Defendant]: Guilty.
"[Court]: Do you admit the two one-year priors that are alleged on that same felony Complaint pursuant to Penal Code Section 667.5, sub (a)?
"[Defendant]: Yes, your Honor.
"[Court]: Counsel join?
"[Defense counsel]: Join.
"[Court]: People concur and accept the pleas?
"[Prosecutor]: Yes, your Honor."
The parties stipulated that the police report provided the factual basis for defendant's plea.
Defendant was accepted into the mental health court program. Thereafter, to enable her to enter the program, she was placed on probation and, inter alias, "ordered to report to the mental health court." Court credits were waived.
On December 11, 2017, defendant failed to appear. The court revoked defendant's probation and issued a bench warrant.
On January 8, 2018, the court recalled defendant's bench warrant. Defendant was in the medical ward and was evaluated. On February 5, 2018, defendant was accepted back into the mental health court program. The court reinstated defendant's probation and ordered defendant to check in with the probation department and the mental health court team.
On February 27, 2018, defendant was not in compliance with the terms of the mental health court. Therefore, she was in violation of probation, which was revoked.
On March 26, 2018, the court determined that defendant was no longer amenable for treatment in the mental health court program. The court found defendant in violation of probation and terminated her probation. The court sentenced defendant to five years consisting of the following: three years (upper term) for count 1, and one year each for the two prison prior terms. The court imposed various fines and fees and awarded presentence credit. The court also imposed a concurrent term of three years in another matter.
On June 11, 2018, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Proposition 47 for her felony grand theft conviction. (§ 1170.18.) She argued that the value of the property did not exceed $950. The People filed a response to the petition for resentencing. The People stated: "The value of the taking was in excess of $950. Agreement reached on 11-21-2017, well after changes in theft limits and Proposition 47." The court denied the petition without a hearing.
On June 27, 2018, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal on the denial of her section 1170.18 petition.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon her request, this court appointed counsel to represent her. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but she has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no error.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J. We concur: McKINSTER
Acting P. J. CODRINGTON
J.