P. v. Little
Filed 10/1/09 P. v. Little 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Colusa)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STACY ANTOINETTE LITTLE, Defendant and Appellant. | C061360 (Super. Ct. No. CR49472) |
According to the probation report to which the parties stipulated as a factual basis, defendant Stacy Antoinette Little sold methamphetamine to a monitored undercover agent at the Colusa Casino on two different occasions. A complaint charged her with two counts of selling methamphetamine. She waived her right to a preliminary hearing, and the parties stipulated to deeming the complaint to be the information.
On the day before trial, defendant waived her rights and entered a plea of no contest to both counts in exchange for a recommendation of probation. The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted formal probation for a period of five years, subject to numerous conditions including a six-month jail term. The order of probation imposed fines and fees, reciting the statutory basis for each. Defendant did not request a certificate of probable cause in connection with her notice of appeal.
We have appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of her 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 have not received any communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we do not find any arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
We have, however, found several minor errors that require correction. The order of probation properly precluded her from knowingly associating with probationers or parolees in condition number 10 but failed to include this essential element of knowledge in condition number 11 (relating to association with drug users or being places where drugs are present) or condition number 18 (relating to being in the presence of an armed person or in any home or vehicle in which deadly or dangerous weapons are present). We therefore direct the trial court to amend the order in these respects. (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 885-886, 891.)[1] Defendant notes that the order also recites the incorrect statutory basis for the $252 lab analysis fee in condition number 14(d), but does not dispute its applicability. The trial court in amending the order can change the cited reference from Penal Code section 1203.1b to Health and Safety Code section 11372.5.
DISPOSITION
The order of probation is affirmed. The trial court is directed to issue an amended order in accordance with this opinion.
RAYE , J.
We concur:
SIMS , Acting P. J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] In the interest of judicial economy, we address this relatively uncontroversial error without first requesting supplemental briefing. Any party claiming to be aggrieved may petition for rehearing. (Gov. Code, 68081.)
