(Super. Ct. No. CM033074)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murray , J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 June 2010, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at the residence of defendant Kelly Jean Tate, her boyfriend, and their two young children. Officers noted that the home was very dirty and smelled like spoiled food. During their search, officers discovered methamphetamine, marijuana, prescription drugs, and drug paraphernalia. The minors were detained and the Children's Services Division took hair samples to determine the minors' level of potential drug exposure. Both minors tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine.
Defendant was charged with felony child endangerment (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor possession of a smoking device (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd (a)). Represented by counsel, she entered a plea of no contest to both charges.
The court denied probation and sentenced defendant to the middle term of four years in state prison for the child abuse count, plus a concurrent six-month term for the smoking device count. Defendant received five days of presentence custody credit (three days of actual credit plus two days of conduct credit). The court imposed a restitution fine of $200 (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), a parole revocation fine of $200, stayed pending successful completion of parole (id., § 1202.45), a $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)) plus specified penalties and surcharges, a $150 drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7, subd. (a)) plus specified penalties and surcharges, an $80 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), and a $60 conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373), and ordered restitution to the victims, reserving jurisdiction over the amount to be paid. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error in favor of defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: NICHOLSON , Acting P. J. BUTZ , J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...