P. v. Mayer

P. v. Mayer

Filed 8/20/08 P. v. Mayer CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Shasta)

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PATRICE RUTH MAYER, Defendant and Appellant.

C056999 (Super. Ct. Nos. 07F3377, 06F4724)

In June 2006, defendant Patrice Ruth Mayers live-in boyfriend told a Redding police officer that he had been awakened by defendant striking his back with a wooden stick.^[1] The officer observed four bruises on the victims back. Defendant denied the allegation and claimed the victim was a habitual drunk who falls down several times per day. When confronted with the fact the victims bruises were on his back, she claimed he had fallen against a dresser.

Later that same month, in case No. 06F4724, defendant pleaded guilty to infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code,  273.5, subd. (a))^[2]and admitted a prior conviction of that offense ( 273.5, subd. (e)). In exchange, a related count and an enhancement were dismissed. In July 2006, imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on formal probation on conditions including incarceration for 61 days with 61 days of credit for time served, a $650 fine, a $400 domestic violence fine ( 1203.097, subd. (a)(5)), an $800 restitution fine ( 1202.4, subd. (b)) plus administrative fee, and an $800 restitution fine suspended unless probation is revoked ( 1202.44).

Thereafter, several probation violations related to consumption or possession of alcohol were filed and adjudicated by defendants admissions.

In January 2007, defendant allegedly assaulted her boyfriend with a whiskey bottle.^[3] In August 2007, in case No. 07F3377, defendant pleaded no contest to misdemeanor infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant. ( 273.5, subd. (a).) In case No. 06F4724, she admitted that she violated her probation by committing the offense in case No. 07F3377.

In September 2007, in case No. 06F4727, defendant was sentenced to state prison for two years, awarded 242 days of custody credit and 120 days of conduct credit, and ordered to pay the previously imposed $800 restitution fine, the now-unstayed $800 probation revocation fine ( 1202.44), a stayed $800 parole revocation fine ( 1202.45), and a $20 court security fee ( 1465.8). In case No. 07F3377, probation was denied and a 90-day sentence was imposed to run concurrently to the sentence in case No. 06F4724.

Defendant appeals.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgments (case Nos. 07F3377 & 06F4724) are affirmed.

BUTZ , J.

We concur:

SCOTLAND, P.J.

BLEASE , J.

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^[1] Because defendant pleaded guilty, our statement of facts is taken from the probation officers report.

^[2] Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

^[3] Because defendant pleaded no contest, and the facts were not otherwise developed on the record, we rely on the statement of the alleged violation set forth in the petition for revocation of probation.