Court Opinion

ID: 9371222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 19:02:26.83107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:37.828876
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/15/23 P. v. Hoyt 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                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                          D080939

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. SCS317747)

ANTOINETTE HOYT,

         Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Marcella O. McLaughlin, Judge. Affirmed.
         Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
         Antoinette Hoyt entered into a plea agreement in which she pleaded

guilty to attempted pandering (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664/266i, subd. (a)(2); count 2),
assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4);
count 6), and misdemeanor petty theft (§ 484; count 8). The parties

1        All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
stipulated to a sentence of three years and eight months, such sentence to be
suspended and Hoyt granted probation for two years. The court suspended
sentence and granted probation.
      Hoyt was later charged with violating probation. She admitted the
violation and waived custody credits and was reinstated on probation.
      Hoyt was again revoked on probation. The court declined to reinstate
her to probation and executed the previously suspended sentence. The court
considered and then rejected a defense request to sentence Hoyt pursuant to
section 1170, subdivision (b)(6).
      Hoyt filed a timely notice of appeal.
      Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any
arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the
record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Hoyt the opportunity to
file her own brief on appeal, but she has not responded.
                                    DISCUSSION
      Appellate counsel’s Wende brief includes a reference to possible, but not
arguable issues consistent with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738
(Anders). These possible issues were considered in evaluating the potential
merits of this appeal:
      1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by refusing to reinstate Hoyt
on probation?
      2. Did the court err in imposing the middle term in light of section
1170, subdivision (b)(6)?
      We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders.
We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
Competent counsel has represented Hoyt on this appeal.

                                        2
                             DISPOSITION
     The judgment is affirmed.

                                           HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

DO, J.

BUCHANAN, J.

                                  3