P. v. Gonzalez
Filed 8/27/08 P. v. Gonzalez CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANNA MARIA GONZALEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | B205676 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA074555) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Joan Comparet-Cassani, Judge. Affirmed.
Deborah Blanchard, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Anna Maria Gonzalez appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted her of one count of possession of methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a). She was placed on three years probation under the terms and conditions of Proposition 36 and ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine, a $100 drug rehabilitation fine and a $50 lab fee.
FACTS
Police officers served an arrest warrant on defendants boyfriend at her apartment. After arresting the boyfriend, the officers obtained defendants oral and written consent to search her apartment and found a glass smoking pipe and a baggie of methamphetamine in a bedroom. Defendant was advised of and waived her right to remain silent, to the presence of an attorney and, if indigent, to appointed counsel (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694]) and admitted to the officers the methamphetamine was hers.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On May 19, 2008, we advised defendant she had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues she wished us to consider. We have received no response to date. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied defendants attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v.Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v.Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
JACKSON, J.
We concur:
WOODS, J. Acting P. J.
ZELON, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
