P. v.
Brown

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 6/4/13 
P. v. Brown 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NOT TO
BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

(Sacramento)

----

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,                           Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   TIERSA BROWN,                           Defendant and Appellant.

C069874   (Super. Ct. No. 11F05142)

            Appointed counsel for defendant
Tiersa Brown 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.

            We provide the following brief
description of the facts and procedural history of the case.  (See People
v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) 


            On May 19, 2011, defendant
Tiersa Brown drove with a blood-alcohol level of .16 percent.  She also possessed a useable amount of
cocaine base.  She was previously
convicted of driving with a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent or higher on
June 28, 2008. 

            Defendant pled no contest to
possession of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350) and driving
under the influence of alcohol with a prior conviction for driving under the
influence (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)). 
The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted defendant
five years’ formal probation with 180 days in county jail.  The trial court subsequently granted
defendant’s request to permit her to serve the jail term in San Bernardino
County with the consent of the Sacramento County Sherriff’s Department. 

            Defendant appeals.  The trial court denied her request for a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">certificate of probable cause.  

            We appointed href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">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.  (Wende,> supra, 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 href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">opening brief.  More than 30 days elapsed, and we 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 judgment is affirmed.

 

 

 

                                                                                         HOCH                 , J.

 

 

 

We concur:

 

 

 

              ROBIE               , Acting P. J.

 

 

 

            MAURO              , J.