P. v. Gallaghan
Filed 7/2/12
P. v. Gallaghan 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
(Tehama)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ELAINE SUE
GALLAGHAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
C069852
(Super. Ct. No. NCR68453)
On
March 26, 2006, a California Highway Patrol Officer conducted a traffic stop on
defendant Elaine Sue Gallaghan for speeding.
Defendant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. During a search of defendant’s car, an
officer found a baggie of methamphetamine in a coin purse in defendant’s
bag.
Defendant
pled no contest to possession of
methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to two
years in state prison, suspended
imposition of sentence, and placed her on five years’ Proposition 36 probation
subject to various conditions, including the payment of certain fines and
fees.
Defendant
stopped reporting to her probation officer in August 2008. She moved without permission, failed to
notify her probation officer of the move, and failed to make payments on her
fines and fees.
Defendant
admitted violating her probation. On October 25, 2011, the trial court executed the previously imposed sentence and
committed defendant to a two-year term in county jail (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd.
(h)(1), (2)), imposed various fines and fees, and awarded 128 days of
presentence credit (86 actual and 42 conduct).
The trial court subsequently amended the conduct credits to 86 days, for
a total of 172 days of presentence credit.
Defendant
appeals. She did not obtain a
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
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a
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.
NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.
We concur:
BUTZ , J.
MAURO , J.
