Court Opinion

ID: 9957699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 21:02:19.235383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:34.382866
License: Public Domain

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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                   C099448

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. No. 62159212)

           v.

 ANDREA KATHLEEN PHILLIPS,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         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.

                                                             1
                                       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))1 in 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.

                                              2
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.

                                              3
                                       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.

                                              4