(Super. Ct. No. NCR78963)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull , Acting P. 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
After defendant Christina Antonia Vignon was convicted of selling marijuana and maintaining a place for the sale of marijuana, she was sentenced to an aggregate term of two years in prison. Her ensuing appeal is subject to the principles of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110. In accordance with the latter, we will provide a summary of the offense and the proceedings in the trial court.
In February 2010, a confidential informant working with the Tehama Interagency Drug Enforcement Agency made two purchases of marijuana from defendant, one of 10.4 grams for $40 and one of 11.5 grams for $40. Defendant was charged with two counts of sale of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)) and one count of maintaining a place for selling marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11366), each with a special allegation that she had a prior conviction (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded no contest to one count of sale of marijuana and maintaining a place for the sale of marijuana. The remaining count and prior conviction allegations were dismissed. The court denied her probation and sentenced her to a term of two years on the count charging the sale of marijuana and 16 months on the count charging maintaining a place for the sale of marijuana, to run concurrently. She was awarded 14 days of presentence custody credit. Defendant was ordered to pay a $400 restitution fund fine, a $100 drug program fee, plus assessments, a $60 court security fee and a $60 criminal conviction assessment. Defendant appeals, but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
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. (Wende, supra, 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 and has done so.
In her supplemental brief, defendant complains about the conditions of her confinement, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's indifference to her medical needs, that she was forced to plead to drug offenses rather than getting the benefit of the Compassionate Use Act (CUA), that she was in compliance with the CUA, that she was under anesthesia the day before she sold marijuana to the confidential informant and that he lied to her about the validity of his medical marijuana authorization. The record on appeal does not contain evidence supporting these complaints, and on direct appeal, our review is limited to the appellate record. Accordingly, we will not consider these complaints. (People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 952.) To the extent defendant complains she complied with the CUA and was improperly convicted of drug offenses, these complaints go to the validity of her plea, a challenge she cannot make on appeal in the absence of a certificate of probable cause. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 76.)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: MAURO , J. ...