Filed 10/10/13 P. v. Brown CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. DIANNE RENEE BROWN, Defendant and Appellant. D063838

(Super. Ct. No. SCD239027)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert F. O'Neill, Judge. Affirmed. Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by th e Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Dianne Renee Brown was ch arged with numerous offens es based on a scheme in which she recorded qu it claim and grant deeds on 31 pr operties. She then removed realtor signs and lockboxes, rekeyed the lock s and rented some of the properties through a fictitious business. She pleaded guilty to one count of burglary, three counts of filing a false instrument and one count of rent skim ming. Thereafter the court granted Brown probation for three years on va rious terms and conditions.2 In October 2012, the court issued an ex parte order summarily revoking probation on the grounds that Brown failed to report to th e probation officer and had failed to report to the work furl ough facility. In January 2013, the court held an ev identiary hearing on the alleged probation violation. After signing the appropriate waiv er and being warned of the risks of selfrepresentation, the court permitted Brown to represent herself. Brown stated that she was told by a cler k that she did not have to report to probation until 72 hours after sh e was released from work furl ough. She also contended that she did not have to go to work furlough as ordered because she had filed a notice of appeal. Brown also attempted to call the two deputy district attorneys and their investigator to testify at the probation re vocation hearing because the prosecution had committed fraud in the prosecution of the case . The trial court de nied Brown's request. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court revoked Brown's probation and sentenced her to a combined sentence of eight years ei ght months in prison. In March 2013, the trial judge recalled the prison sentence, reinstated Brown on probation, subject to a number of conditions in cluding 365 days in cu stody, and extended the term of probation until March 7, 2016. Brown filed a timely notice of appeal. 1

1 We have taken judicial notice of the record in case D062802 which was Brown's appeal following her guilty plea and grant of probati on. The order granting probation was affirmed in an unpublished opinion filed on August 9, 2013.3 DISCUSSION Appellate counsel has filed a brief summa rizing, at great length, the facts and proceedings below. Counsel pr esented no argument for revers al, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ). Under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 ( Anders ), she listed numerous possible, but not arguable issues. We su mmarize the lengthy assortment of "possible issues" as follows: 1. Did the trial court properly allow Br own to represent herself at the revocation hearing? 2. Was Brown afforded her tria l rights at the revocation hearing? 3. Did the court properly deny Brown' s request to call the prosecutors and their investigator to tes tify at the hearing? 4. Was the evidence suffi cient to support the decisi on to revoke probation? 5. Did the court properly extend the pe riod of probation when it reinstated Brown to probation? 6. Did the court correctly select count 76 as the principal term in the calculation of the suspended prison sentence? 7. Are separate sentences authorized fo r rent skimming under Civil Code sections 890 and 892? 8. Did the trial court properly impose full term consecutive sentences for the misdemeanor offenses?4 9. Was it necessary for the court in imposing the suspended sentences to order that the misdemeanor terms be served (if imposed) in the county jail? 10. Does Penal Code section 654 pr event the court from imposing separate sentences for count 21 (recording a false instrument) and count 76 (rent skimming)? 11. Whether any challenge to the senten ce under Penal Code section 654 need to be raised on the present appeal, and if so, is a certificate of probable cause required? We granted Brown permission to file a brief on her own behalf. She has not responded. Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including possible issues listed by counsel pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has not disclosed any reasonably arguable issues on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Brown on this appeal.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:

McDONALD, J.

O'ROURKE, J.