Filed 9/29/26 P. v. Smith CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not
been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
A175325
v.
LESLIE SMITH, (Napa County Super. Ct.
No. 20CR002208)
Defendant and
Appellant.
Defendant Leslie Smith entered a no contest plea to one
count of felony stalking, in violation of Penal Code section 646.9,
subdivision (b). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence
and placed defendant on formal probation with a requirement
that she serve 257 days as a condition of probation, with credit
for having served that entire term. After defendant’s second
violation, the court terminated probation and sentenced
defendant to the low term of two years in state prison.
Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) summarizing the
facts and asking the court to review the record to identify any
issues warranting relief. Defendant was advised of her right to
file a supplemental brief, but failed to do so. After our
1
independent review of the record, we find no issues warranting
further briefing and therefore affirm.
BACKGROUND
After being charged with numerous offenses relating to her
conduct toward her neighbor, defendant entered a no contest plea
to one count of felony stalking. In June 2023, the court placed
defendant on formal probation for a period of two years, with a
custodial term of 257 days as a condition of probation, and credit
for having served that term.
Defendant admitted her first violation of probation on
February 6, 2024. The court revoked and reinstated probation,
imposing an additional 30 days in county jail with credit for six
actual days and six conduct credits. The court ordered defendant
to report to the probation department immediately upon her
release from custody.
On June 6, 2024, the probation department filed a second
petition to revoke defendant’s probation based on her having
absconded from supervision. The trial court issued a no-bail
bench warrant, and defendant was arrested on November 10,
2025.
After a contested hearing, the court found the alleged
violation to be true. On January 12, 2026, the trial court
terminated probation and sentenced defendant to state prison for
the low term of two years, with 413 total days of credit.
DISCUSSION
The People having proven that defendant was “MIA” with
no “good excuse as to why she did not report to Probation for a
2
year and a half,” the trial court properly concluded that
defendant had violated the terms of her probation, and it did not
err in selecting the sentence for the violation.
Having conducted an independent review of the record, we
find no issues requiring further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BROWN, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
GOLDMAN, J.
GORDON, J.
People v. Smith (A175325)
Judge of the Superior Court of San Francisco County,
assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of
the California Constitution.
3