Filed 6/10/15 P. v. Hardy CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. AMELIA HARDY, Defendant and Appellant. D066997

(Super. Ct. No. SCD239663)

APPEAL from an order of the Superi or Court of San Di ego County, Desiree Bruce-Lyle, Judge. Affirmed.

Patricia Ihara, under appointment by th e Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Amelia Hardy appeals from a postjudgment order revoking mandatory supervision following a contested hearing. (Pen. Code, § 1203.2.) Appointed a ppellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for2 error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ). Hardy has not responded to our invitation to file a suppl emental brief. After having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 ( Anders ) and Wende , we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 Following a plea of guilty to aiding and abetting the sale of a controlled substance to an undercover police officer (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), Hardy received a split sentence of two years in local custody a nd two years mandatory supervision. After release from local custody and while on ma ndatory supervision, based on multiple incidents in May 2014 2 and July 2014, at separate hearings the court found that Hardy violated the terms of her mandatory supervisi on during both time peri ods. Only the July 2014 violations, which were the subject of an evidentiary hearing in September 2014, are before us in this appeal. At the September 2014, hearing, based on evidence presented by the People, the court found that Hardy had violated the te rms of her mandatory supervision in two regards during July 2014: (1 ) Hardy had not complied with the rules of the residential

1 On our own motion, we take judi cial notice of our prior opinion in People v. Hardy (Feb. 11, 2014, D064225) [n onpub. opn.]. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d)(1), 459, subd. (a); Cuccia v. Superior Court (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 347, 350, fn. 2.)
2 On April 12, 2014, Hardy left her s ober living program without permission and spent the night at her daughter's house in violation of the conditions of her mandatory supervision. On May 1, 2014, the court formally revoked mandatory supervision and following an evidentiary hearing on May 22, 2014, ordered Hardy to take her psychotropic medications and to serve 120 days in local cu stody. By mid-June, Hardy was released from custody and again placed in a sober living tr ansitional program.3 treatment facility at which she lived, by leav ing twice without permission; and (2) Hardy had failed to take the psychotropic medica tions prescribed by a medical doctor and ordered by the court. The court revoked ma ndatory supervision and then reinstated it on the original terms and conditio ns with the modification that Hardy serve 136 days in custody. Hardy timely appealed.
II. DISCUSSION Appointed appellate counsel has f iled a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the trial court. Counsel pr esented no argument for reversal, instead inviting this court to review the re cord for error in accordance with Wende , supra , 25 Cal.3d 436.
Pursuant to Anders , supra , 386 U.S. 738, counsel identified as possible but not arguable issues (1) whether the 136 days of custody ordered by the court are statutorily authorized; (2) whether substa ntial admissible evid ence supports the findings that Hardy left the residential treatment facility in viol ation of its rules, a nd that Hardy was not taking the previously prescribed and orde red medications; and (3) whether the court properly calculated Hardy's credits. After we received counsel's brief, we gave Hardy an oppo rtunity to file a supplemental brief, but she did not respond. We have reviewed the record pursuant to Wende , supra , 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders , supra , 386 U.S. 738, and have considered the issues suggested by counsel, but4 have discerned no reas onably arguable appellate issue. Hardy has been adequately represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION The order is affirmed.

IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:

BENKE, Acting P. J.

HUFFMAN, J.