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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 Superior Court of San Diego County, Desiree 

Bruce-Lyle, Judge. Affirmed. 

 Patricia Ihara, under appointment by the 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 appellate counsel filed 

a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for 
2 

error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Hardy has not 

responded to our invitation to file a supplemental 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 BACKGROUND1

 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 and two years mandatory supervision. After 

release from local custody and while on mandatory supervision, based on multiple 

incidents in May 20142 and July 2014, at separate hearings the court found that Hardy 

violated the terms of her mandatory supervision during both time periods. 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 terms 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 judicial notice of our prior opinion in People v. 

Hardy (Feb. 11, 2014, D064225) [nonpub. 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 sober 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 custody. By mid-June, Hardy 

was released from custody and again placed in a sober living transitional program. 
3 

treatment facility at which she lived, by leaving twice without permission; and (2) Hardy 

had failed to take the psychotropic medications prescribed by a medical doctor and 

ordered by the court. The court revoked mandatory supervision and then reinstated it on 

the original terms and conditions with the modification that Hardy serve 136 days in 

custody. 

 Hardy timely appealed. 

II. 

DISCUSSION 

 Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and 

proceedings in the trial court. Counsel presented no argument for reversal, instead 

inviting this court to review the record 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 substantial admissible evidence supports the findings that Hardy 

left the residential treatment facility in violation of its rules, and that Hardy was not 

taking the previously prescribed and ordered medications; and (3) whether the court 

properly calculated Hardy's credits. 

 After we received counsel's brief, we gave Hardy an opportunity 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, but 
4 

have discerned no reasonably 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.