P. v. Donald
Filed 7/14/06 P. v. Donald CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
COPY
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WANDA DRUSELL DONALD, Defendant and Appellant. | C051271
(Super. Ct. No. 05F06105)
|
Defendant Wanda Drusell Donald entered a negotiated plea of no contest to selling base cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) and admitted having been previously convicted of selling a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a)) and having sustained a prior serious or violent felony (Pen. Code, §§ 1192.7, subd. (c), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). In exchange for her plea, it was agreed she would receive no more than eight years in state prison. In accordance with the plea agreement, the court sentenced defendant to the median term of four years, doubled pursuant to the three strikes law, and dismissed the Health and Safety Code section 1170.2 enhancement. The court also imposed two restitution fines of $200 (Pen. Code, §§ 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45), with the latter fine suspended unless defendant's parole is revoked. Defendant was awarded 188 days of custody credit.
Defendant appeals. She did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)
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 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.
HULL , J.
We concur:
SIMS , Acting P.J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Real Estate Attorney.
