Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County Super. Ct. No. 06CM0494. Lynn C. Atkinson, Judge.
William Davies, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Harris, J. and Kane, J.
OPINION
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Harris, J. and Kane, J.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On February 16, 2006, the Kings County District Attorney filed a felony complaint in the Lemoore Division of superior court charging appellant as follows: count I—unlawful transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)); count II—unlawful possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378); and count III—willful harm or injury to a child (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)). As to counts I and II, the district attorney specially alleged that appellant was personally armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (c)) and that each offense precluded a grant of probation except in an unusual case (Pen. Code, § 1203.073, subd. (b)(2)).
On March 29, 2006, the court suspended criminal proceedings so that appellant’s mental competence could be evaluated under Penal Code section 1368, subdivision (b).
On May 19, 2006, appellant waived her right to trial and the court found appellant competent and reinstated criminal proceedings.
On June 2, 2006, appellant waived a preliminary hearing and pleaded no contest to count II and the Penal Code section 1203.073, subdivision (b)(2) allegation. The magistrate dismissed counts I and III and the Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (c) allegations (Pen. Code, § 859a).
On June 30, 2006, the court set a sentencing hearing for July 13, 2006.
On July 10, 2006, appellant filed a request for probation and statement in mitigation.
On July 13, 2006, the court denied appellant probation and sentenced her to state prison for the middle term of two years on count II. The court imposed a $400 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), imposed and suspended a second such fine pending successful completion of parole (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), ordered appellant to provide samples of prints and bodily fluids (Pen. Code, § 296), and ordered her to register as a narcotics offender (Health & Saf. Code, § 11590). The court also imposed a number of penalties and penalty assessments (Pen. Code, §§ 1465.7, 1465.8, 1464; Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5; Gov. Code, §§ 70372, 76000, 76104.6). The court also awarded 180 days of custody credits.
On August 3, 2006, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and request for certificate of probable cause, alleging her “constitutional due process rights ... were violated by the unlawful imposition of the sentence.”
On August 8, 2006, the court filed an order denying appellant’s application for certificate of probable cause.
On March 9, 2007, this court denied appellant’s January 25, 2007, motion to expand the scope of appointment to include the filing of a writ of mandate to compel the superior court to issue a certificate of probable cause.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The following facts are taken from the probation officer’s report filed June 22, 2006:
“On November 19, 2005 and November 28, 2005, Naval Criminal Investigation Services conducted a controlled purchase of suspected methamphetamine utilizing a cooperating witness. As a result of the controlled purchases, the defendant, Vanessa Torem, as well as George Peters, Shawn Ward, and Carrie Spivey, were identified as conspirators in the drug transaction.
“As a result of a continuing investigation, on February 14, 2006, the defendant’s husband, Phillip Torem, gave written authorization to search his residence, the same residence as the defendant. As a result of the search, approximately 1.5 ounces of suspected methamphetamine was located; with addition, scales, handwritten and typed lists of drug weights and prices, and drug packaging material were located. The methamphetamine was located in a spare bedroom. The defendant was interviewed and admitted to being in possession of the found suspected methamphetamine, scales, and paraphernalia. She further advised her motivation to sell drugs was due to losing her job recently and wanting extra money. The defendant estimated the value of the methamphetamine in her possession to be approximately $1,000.00 (street value).
“The defendant was subsequently arrested, transported, and booked into the Kings County Jail.
“ DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT
“On June 19, 2006, the defendant reported to the Kings County Probation Department as directed. In regard to the circumstances of the offense, the defendant commented she only pled due to her attorney’s advice. The defendant denies ever having sold methamphetamine and further commented she was only holding the substance for someone else. The defendant declined to state who she was holding the substance for, in that the person has been subsequently convicted and sentenced to prison for ten years. The defendant further commented she was fearful for her safety if she provided the individual’s name.”
DISCUSSION
Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed an opening brief which adequately summarizes the facts and adequately cites to the record, which raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) By letter dated April 12, 2007, this court invited appellant to submit additional briefing and state any grounds of appeal she may wish this court to consider. Appellant has not done so.
Our independent review discloses no reasonably arguable appellate issues. “[A]n arguable issue on appeal consists of two elements. First, the issue must be one which, in counsel’s professional opinion, is meritorious. That is not to say that the contention must necessarily achieve success. Rather, it must have a reasonable potential for success. Second, if successful, the issue must be such that, if resolved favorably to the appellant, the result will either be a reversal or a modification of the judgment. (People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.