P. v. Lawrence
Filed 10/30/07 P. v. Lawrence CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHELE CHRISTINE LAWRENCE, Defendant and Appellant. | B196928 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA054495) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ronald S. Coen, Judge. Affirmed.
Dennis L. Cava, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________________________
Michele Lawrence entered a negotiated plea of no contest to possession of methamphetamine and misdemeanor forgery and was granted probation on various terms and conditions, including that she not use drugs. Probation was later revoked, and at a contested hearing held on November 27, 2006, the court found that defendant violated probation by failing to report timely to her probation officer and failing drug tests. Probation was then reinstated but modified to include the requirement that defendant serve 365 days in county jail. On January 2, 2007, the date set for defendant to surrender herself, the court denied defendants alternative requests to withdraw her guilty plea, rescind the requirement of jail time, and extend the date for her to surrender.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and we appointed counsel to represent her. Counsel filed a brief in which no issues were raised and requested that this court undertake an independent review of the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441442.) Thereafter, on August 30, 2007, we sent notice to defendant at her last known address (in county jail) that within 30 days she could personally submit any contentions or issues that she wished us to consider. The letter was returned with a notation that defendant was not at the facility and there was no forwarding address. After the letter was returned, we contacted appellate counsel, who told us that he had no address for defendant other than the one to which our letter had been sent.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendants attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109 110; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
MALLANO, Acting P. J.
We concur:
VOGEL, J.
JACKSON, J.*
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
*Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
