Court Opinion

ID: 9926436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 19:02:07.638981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:49.295090
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/24/24 P. v. Ramirez CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                      DIVISION EIGHT

 THE PEOPLE,                                                   B331690

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                           Los Angeles County
                                                               Super. Ct. No. MA080983
           v.

 ELSA JUDITH RAMIREZ,

           Defendant and Appellant.

       APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Emily Cole, Judge. Affirmed.
       Breana Shannen Frankel, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
       No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                       ____________________
       After reviewing this appeal pursuant to People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we affirm.
       A felony complaint charged Elsa Ramirez with three counts
of felony possession for sale of various controlled substances:
methamphetamine (Count 1), in violation of Health and Safety
Code section 11378, and heroin (Count 2) and fentanyl (Count 3),
in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351; it also
charged her with felony possession of personal identifying
information of 10 or more persons with intent to defraud, in
violation of Penal Code section 530.5(c)(3) (Count 4). Ramirez
was also charged with a misdemeanor count of possession of
cannabis for sale, in violation of Health and Safety Code section
11359(b) (Count 5).
       Represented by counsel, Ramirez waived her rights and
entered a plea of no contest to Counts 2 and 4. The trial court
dismissed the remaining counts, suspended imposition of
sentence and placed Ramirez on felony probation for two years,
assessing various fees and imposing additional conditions.
       One month later, Ramirez failed to appear for a restitution
hearing. The court revoked probation and issued a bench
warrant. About five weeks later, Ramirez appeared in court and
was remanded to custody. The court set a probation violation
hearing. At the hearing, the court found a probation violation
based on the probation officer’s report and Ramirez’s admission of
a violation, and reinstated probation on the same terms.
       Two months later, Ramirez failed to appear for a probation
progress hearing. The court revoked probation and again issued
a bench warrant. After a period of nearly five months, Ramirez
was delivered to court on the bench warrant. She was remanded
to custody and the court set a probation violation hearing.
       At the hearing, the court found a probation violation based
on the probation officer’s report and Ramirez’s admission of a
violation. Ramirez waived all back time as of the date of that
hearing, and the court reinstated her probation with an extension
of two years on Count 2.

                                2
       Just over a month later, the court again issued a bench
warrant. Shortly thereafter Ramirez was delivered to court on
the bench warrant, remanded to custody and the court set a
probation violation hearing.
       At the hearing, the court found a probation violation based
on the probation officer’s report and Ramirez’s admission of a
violation. The court reinstated her probation, removing all
conditions other than reporting to the probation officer, and
admonished Ramirez that failure to comply would result in the
court imposing sentence.
       One month later, Ramirez failed to appear for a probation
progress hearing. The court revoked probation and again issued
a bench warrant. After another period of over five months,
Ramirez was again delivered to court on the bench warrant. She
was remanded to custody and the court set a probation violation
hearing.
       At the hearing, heard testimony from probation officer
Nancy Rosas. Ramirez’s defense counsel argued that Ramirez
had been unable to comply with the terms of probation and
should be given another chance. The court found Ramirez not
suitable for probation, revoked probation, and sentenced Ramirez
to the mid-term of three years in county jail as to Count 2 (see
Health & Saf. Code § 11351) and one third of the mid-term of 24
months on Count 4 (see Pen. Code §§ 530.5(c)(3) & 1170(h)(1)-(2))
for a total sentence of three years and eight months. She
received credit only for her current time in custody because she
had waived all time at a previous hearing.
       Ramirez appealed from this order, and we appointed
counsel to represent her. Appointed counsel examined the record
and filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court

                                3
to review the record independently under Wende. Counsel also
advised Ramirez of her right to file a supplemental brief for us to
consider. Ramirez did not file a supplemental brief.
       We have examined the entire appellate record. We are
satisfied Ramirez’s counsel fully complied with counsel’s
responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (See Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–442.)

                         DISPOSITION
      The order is affirmed.

                                           WILEY, J.

We concur:

             STRATTON, P. J.

             GRIMES, J.

                                 4