P. v. Tomlin
Filed 4/25/13 P. v. Tomlin CA2/4
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
>
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BETTY LOU TOMLIN, Defendant and Appellant. | B240705 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA114553) |
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of
County, Marcelita V. Haynes, Judge. Affirmed.
Elizabeth A. Courtenay,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant Betty Lou Tomlin pled no
contest to possession of a controlled
substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). Imposition of the two-year midterm sentence
was suspended, and she was placed on probation and ordered to complete a drug
treatment program. After the court
repeatedly ordered Tomlin to complete various drug treatment programs, it
revoked probation and imposed the two-year prison term. Tomlin appealed. Our independent review of the record reveals
no arguable issues that would aid
Tomlin. We affirm.
Tomlin
was charged with possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Health and
Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a).
She pled no contest as the result of a plea agreement. In exchange, she was given a two-year midterm
sentence, execution suspended. In
addition, she was to serve three years of formal probation and complete one
year of live-in treatment at the Sylmar
Rehabilitation Center. Judge Haynes stated the reporting
requirements attached to the sentence and imposed a series of fines. The fines were permanently stayed because of
Tomlin’s indigence. She was released to
a representative of the drug treatment
program.
Tomlin
failed to appear at a subsequent court hearing.
The probation report indicated that she had deserted probation. A bench warrant was issued, and probation was
revoked. Tomlin then appeared before the
court and admitted she had violated probation.
The court reinstated probation and ordered her to complete the
rehabilitation program.
Four
months later, probation was again revoked, and Tomlin was remanded into
custody. She admitted violating her
probation by failing to follow the drug treatment program’s rules. The court stated that it would be giving her
“one more chance†before having the two-year prison term imposed. Probation was reinstated, and Tomlin was
again ordered to complete a treatment program and to attend day programs. The court told Tomlin that she was to report
to probation “once [she was] stabilized†and ensured that she understood those
conditions.
Probation
was again revoked after Tomlin failed to comply with the treatment program’s
rules, and she was placed in jail. The
court stated that it would allow Tomlin another chance to complete the drug
treatment program. It explicitly stated
that if she failed to follow the rules of the facility, she would be sent to
prison to serve her term. The court left
probation revoked and set a probation violation hearing for 30 days later. The court asked Tomlin if she understood what
she was expected to do and told her she was being ordered to appear at that
hearing. She affirmed that she
understood. Tomlin failed to appear at
the hearing, and a bench warrant was issued.
The
court held a hearing on the probation violation, which Tomlin attended. It indicated that Tomlin had failed to comply
with the orders of the treatment program and did not report to probation. Tomlin did not refute that she had failed to
comply with the program’s rules, but she testified that she was not told to
report to probation and did not know she was supposed to report because she
believed the court had suspended that requirement until the next scheduled
court date. The court indicated that it
was looking at the entire history of the case, including the multiple opportunities
she was afforded to avoid the prison sentence.
It found Tomlin in violation of probation, and probation was ordered
revoked. The previously suspended
two-year prison sentence was imposed.
This
appeal followed.
We
appointed counsel to represent Tomlin
on appeal. Appointed counsel filed an
appellate brief raising no issue, but asking this court to independently review
the entire record on appeal for arguable issues, pursuant to
441–442.
within which to submit by brief or letter any contentions or arguments she
wished this court to consider. No
response has been received.
We
have independently reviewed the record in accordance with People v. Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d at pages 441–442, and find no arguable issues that could aid Tomlin.
The
judgment is affirmed.
EPSTEIN,
P. J.
We concur:
MANELLA, J.
SUZUKAWA,
J.
the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment regarding presentence
credits, but it was not heard because Tomlin had already been released from
custody. Counsel states that more
presentence credit would not benefit Tomlin because she is not subject to
parole or other post-release supervision.
We decline to address the issue as Tomlin’s custody status is not in the
record before us.
