Filed 8/28/18 P. v. Carson CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RAYELL OLIVIA CARSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
F076456
(Super. Ct. No. RF007785A)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Kenneth G. Pritchard, Judge.
Francine R. Tone, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant Rayell Olivia Carson appeals from her conviction for assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)).[1]
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 6, 2017, victim Katisha Anderson was walking with her two minor children when appellant approached in her vehicle and stated, “I’ll run your ass over.” Appellant then swerved her vehicle at the victims. Katisha pushed one of her children out of the path of appellant’s vehicle. Appellant drove away and returned a short time later. She drove her vehicle onto the victim’s front lawn where the minor children were located.
On July 20, 2017, the Kern County District Attorney filed a felony complaint charging appellant with two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)/ counts 1 & 2) consisting of one incident and two victims.
On August 8, 2017, the district attorney amended the complaint to add one count of assault with force likely to produce great bodily harm (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)/count 3). On that same date, appellant pled no contest to count 3 and the other counts were dismissed.
On September 7, 2017, the court suspended imposition of the sentence and placed appellant on probation for a period of three years with the condition that appellant serve 270 days in the custody of the Kern County Sheriff. The court provided appellant the option of the work release program or electronic monitoring with the condition appellant was to report to the probation officer within five days from release. Appellant was thereafter to report to the probation officer monthly, satisfactorily complete anger management counseling, and stay away from the victims. The court imposed various fees and fines.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal in the Kern County Superior Court on October 19, 2017.
Appellant’s appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts, with
citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant was advised of her right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.
DISCUSSION
Following an independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
