P. v. Hedgecock
Filed 4/13/06 P. v. Hedgecock CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RACHELLE A. HEDGECOCK, Defendant and Appellant. | D046704 (Super. Ct. Nos. SCS180562, SCS166396, SCS159185) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Wesley R. Mason, Jeffrey F. Fraser, and Jesus Rodriguez, Judges. Affirmed.
In superior court case number SCS159185, on May 11, 2001, Rachelle A. Hedgecock entered a negotiated guilty plea to grand theft. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a).)[1] The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed her on three years' probation, including conditions she serve 63 days in custody, report to the probation department as directed, report a change of address to the probation department, attend alcohol/drug counseling as directed, complete a residential drug/alcohol treatment program as directed, and submit to chemical testing as requested.
In case No. SCS166396, on March 1, 2002, Hedgecock entered a negotiated guilty plea to burglary. (§ 459.) The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed her on three years' probation, including conditions she serve 365 days in custody, report to the probation department as directed, report a change of address to the probation department, attend alcohol/drug counseling as directed, complete a residential drug/alcohol treatment program as directed, and submit to chemical testing as requested.
In case No. SCS180562, on December 12, 2003, Hedgecock entered guilty pleas to two counts of petty theft (§ 484) and one count of burglary (§ 459). She admitted a prior theft conviction. (§ 666.) The court revoked probation in case Nos. SCS159185 and SCS166396 and sentenced her to prison for five years: three years eight months in case No. SCS180562, the three-year upper term on one conviction of petty theft with a prior theft conviction, consecutive eight months on the second conviction of petty theft with a prior theft conviction, eight months consecutive in case Nos. SCS159185 and SCS166396 to the sentence in case No. SCS180562 (one-third the middle term). The court imposed a concurrent term on the burglary conviction[2] and stayed execution of the entire sentence, placing Hedgecock on three years' probation including conditions she serve 365 days in custody, report to the probation department as directed, report a change of address to the probation department, attend alcohol/drug counseling as directed, complete a residential drug/alcohol treatment program as directed, and submit to chemical testing as requested.
On March 24, 2005, Hedgecock admitted she failed to report to the probation department as directed, failed to report a change of address, failed to complete residential treatment and failed to test for controlled substance and alcohol use. The court revoked probation in all three cases and lifted the stay on the five-year term.[3]
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as a possible but not arguable issue whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to reinstate probation.
We granted Hedgecock permission to file a brief on her own behalf. She has not responded. A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Hedgecock on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, J.
AARON, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Apartment Manager Lawyers.
[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] After the court said it was imposing three years on count 1 in case No. SCS180562 and imposed sentence in the other two cases, the clerk called to court's attention that it had not imposed sentence on counts 2 and 3 in case No. SCS180562. Responding, the court accidentally said it was imposing eight months consecutive on count 1 in accord with the probation department recommendation. The probation department had recommended a three-year term on count 1 and eight months consecutive on count 3. We interpret the record as a three-year sentence on count 1 and eight months consecutive on count 3.
[3] Because Hedgecock entered guilty pleas, she cannot challenge the facts underlying the convictions. (§ 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.) We need not recite the facts.
