Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC061154A.
Ruvolo, P. J.
Introduction
Appellant Cherrie Lynn Mann appeals from a final judgment disposing of all issues between the parties. Appellant’s counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has declared that appellant has been notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead was being requested. Appellant was also advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally.
We note initially that this appeal arises out of a plea of no contest, and that a certificate of probable cause was sought by appellant, and denied by the trial court. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.) Thus, our independent review does not include an inquiry into matters affected by that denial.
Procedural and Factual Background
An 18-count information was filed by the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office on May 24, 2006, charging appellant with a multitude of crimes against property, including passing or attempting to pass fraudulent checks, and grand larceny.
On June 20, 2006, appellant entered a plea of no contest to two counts of grand larceny (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)) as alleged in the information, with a Harvey waiver. In return, it was agreed that appellant would be granted probation, the rest of the counts against her would be dismissed by the prosecution, and she would not be sent to state prison. All consequences of her plea were explained to appellant, and appellant understood and voluntarily consented to a waiver of her constitutional rights to jury trial, to subpoena and confront witnesses, and to refuse to incriminate herself. Sentencing was scheduled for August 17, 2006.
People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
A presentence report was submitted by the probation department recommending that appellant be ordered to serve 120 days in county jail, as part of her grant of probation, and that she receive a total of 74 days of custody credit. The trial court followed the recommendations of the probation department, except that the court ordered appellant to serve a period of 180 days in county jail with 74 days credit. Among other conditions imposed, appellant was ordered to pay victim restitution of $3,555.95.
This amount was later modified by stipulation to $4,100.
A subsequent motion to reduce the jail sentence imposed as a condition of probation was denied by the court. Appellant was ordered to surrender to begin serving her county jail time on November 18, 2006. On December 5, appellant made a motion to recall her sentence, which was also denied.
Thereafter, the prosecutor filed an “Affidavit of Probation Revocation,” alleging that appellant had violated the terms of her probation by failing to surrender on November 18, and failed to make payments on the fees and assessments imposed. At a hearing on January 23, 2007, appellant denied the violations, and the matter was set for a further hearing in February 21, 2007.
At the February hearing, appellant admitted the violations of her probation, after being admonished of the constitutional rights she was waiving by entering the admission. As a result of the admission, the court found probation had been violated. Appellant’s probation was revoked, and then reinstated, with the court modifying the original terms by adding an additional 60 days of county jail time to the 180 previously imposed. Total custody credits of 129 days were awarded.
Conclusions Based Upon Independent Record Review
Upon our independent review of the record we conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued, or that require further briefing on appeal. We discern no error in the sentencing. The grant of probation, and the sentencing choices made by the trial court were consistent with applicable law, supported by substantial evidence, and were well within the discretion of the trial court. The restitution fines and penalties imposed were supported by the law and facts. The subsequent decisions to deny appellant’s request to modify her sentence, to recall the sentence, to revoke her probation, and to reinstate her on probation with modified conditions were supported by the law and facts, and within the discretion of the trial court. At all times appellant was represented by counsel.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Reardon, J., Rivera, J.