IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)
August 28, 2012
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
TAMMY DEE THURSTON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. CM03338)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte , J.
P. v. Thurston
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appointed counsel for defendant Tammy Dee Thurston has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We shall affirm the judgment.
Defendant fraudulently submitted a claim to the payroll unit of the Department of Employment and Social Services, In Home Support Services, for 87.1 hours of work that she did not
perform. She entered a plea of no contest to fraudulent claim for allowance or payment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 14107, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court granted defendant probation for a period of three years subject to certain terms and conditions including that she submit to drug and alcohol testing.
Less than two months later, defendant violated her probation by failing to submit to drug testing. After she admitted the violation, the trial court revoked and reinstated her probation and added two conditions: that she serve 120 days in county jail and that she report and cooperate with Behavioral Health. The court rejected defendant's claim that she should not be subject to alcohol and drug testing. Defendant appeals.
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant 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. We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: BLEASE , Acting P. J. MAURO , J.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.