Court Opinion

ID: 9384418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-03 19:02:47.203836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:53.349498
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/3/23 P. v. Cooper 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                         (Butte)
                                                            ----

THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C096777

                   Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. Nos. 20CF06107,
                                                                                        22CF00831)
         v.

ASHTON MARIE COOPER,

                   Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Ashton Marie Cooper 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.
                                               I. BACKGROUND
         On June 22, 2022, defendant resolved two cases pending against her by plea. In
case No. 20CF06107, defendant pled no contest to possession of a controlled substance
for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) (the possession case). In case No. 22CF00831,

                                                             1
defendant pled no contest to forgery of a check exceeding $950 (Pen. Code, § 470, subd.
(d))1 (the forgery case). In exchange, the court dismissed the remaining charges and
enhancements with a Harvey waiver.2 The stipulated factual basis for her pleas was to be
taken from the probation report.
        On July 20, 2022, the trial court determined defendant was ineligible for
probation, but even if she had been eligible, it would not grant her probation. Further, the
court determined the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors such that the
court imposed the upper term of three years in the possession case and eight months
consecutive in the forgery case with 149 days’ custody credits for the possession case and
309 days’ custody credit for the forgery case. The court also imposed two $300
restitution fines (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), two $300 suspended parole revocation restitution
fines (§ 1202.45), two $30 conviction assessment fees (Gov. Code, § 70373), and two
$40 court operations assessment fees (§ 1465.8), and a theft fine (§ 1202.5) of $39
inclusive of penalty assessments. Defendant timely appealed and did not request a
certificate of probable cause. Appellate briefing in this matter was completed on
February 21, 2023.
                                     II. 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.

1   Subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2   People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.

                                              2
      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.
                                  III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

                                                      /S/

                                                RENNER, J.

We concur:

/S/

HULL, Acting P. J.

/S/

MAURO, J.

                                            3