1

Filed 4/4/24 P. v. Phillips CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Placer)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANDREA KATHLEEN PHILLIPS,

Defendant and Appellant.

C099448

(Super. Ct. No. 62159212)

Appointed counsel for defendant Andrea Kathleen Phillips filed an opening brief 

that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine 

whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 

436.) Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to 

defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
2

BACKGROUND

On May 17, 2018, defendant resolved case No. 62-159212 by pleading no contest 

to theft from an elder or dependent (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (d)(1))1in exchange for a 

four-year grant of formal probation. She stipulated to the factual basis that she 

committed theft and embezzlement by taking $4,092 from two elderly victims as detailed 

further in Placer County Sheriff’s Office report No. SO18001448. The plea agreement 

also resolved three pending petitions for violation of probation in three other cases and 

contemplated that defendant would enter residential drug treatment. 

On June 21, 2018, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed 

defendant on formal probation for a period of four years with specified terms and 

conditions, including that she serve 60 days in custody, which could be satisfied through 

residential drug treatment. The court also imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, 

subd. (b)), a $300 suspended probation revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.44), a $30 

conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $40 court operations assessment 

fee (§ 1465.8). The court issued a 10-year protective order in favor of the victims. 

Defendant was also sentenced to additional custody time in her three other probation 

cases, which could also be satisfied in residential treatment. 

Defendant’s term of probation was extended one year so that it would expire on 

July 21, 2023. On March 15, 2023, the People filed a petition to revoke defendant’s 

probation alleging she violated her probation by failing to obey all laws (counts 1-5), and 

the trial court summarily revoked probation the next day.

On August 3, 2023, defendant waived her right to a contested probation revocation 

hearing and admitted (1) violating the law by possessing or receiving forged money 

(§ 475, subd. (a)) and (2) failing to report to probation (a count added as a result of the 

1

 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

plea deal); in exchange, she would receive a local prison sentence of two or three years. 

These admissions were also found to constitute violations of probation in one other case.

On August 31, 2023, the trial court sentenced defendant to the midterm of three 

years in local prison without a split term, with 224 actual days plus 224 conduct days for 

448 total days custody credit. The court confirmed the original fines and fees and lifted 

the previous suspension on the $300 probation revocation restitution fine. 

On September 5, 2023, defendant filed a request in propria persona that the trial 

court review her custody credit award, arguing her credits were erroneously calculated. 

The court denied the request, subject to defendant’s identification of the specific errors in 

calculation. 

Defendant timely appealed and did not request a certificate of probable cause. 

DISCUSSION

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural 

history of the case and requests this court review the record and determine whether there 

are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant 

was advised by counsel of her right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the 

date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not 

filed a supplemental brief.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find 

no arguable errors that are favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we will affirm the 

judgment.
4

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 /s/

Duarte, Acting P. J.

We concur:

 /s/

Mesiwala, J.

 /s/

Wiseman, J.



 Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by 

the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.