People v. Horton CA3 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Filed 2/27/14 P. v. Horton 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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    (Sacramento)
    ----
    THE PEOPLE,                                                                                  C073348
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     (Super. Ct. No. 13F01076)
    v.
    KATHRYN DARLENE HORTON,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
     (Wende).
    Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment.
    We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of
    the case. (People v. Kelly (2006) 
    40 Cal.4th 106
    , 110, 124.)
    PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
    After defendant Kathryn Darlene Horton was found possessing .4 grams of
    methamphetamine, she pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine. (Health &
    1
    Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).) The trial court placed her on five years of formal
    probation, subject to various conditions including serving 365 days in county jail with 48
    days of presentence credit (24 actual and 24 conduct).
    Defendant appeals. She did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
    WENDE REVIEW
    We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
    brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and
    determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 
    25 Cal.3d 436
    .) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within
    30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we
    received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the
    entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable
    to defendant.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    MURRAY                 , Acting P. J.
    We concur:
    DUARTE                 , J.
    HOCH                   , J.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: C073348

Filed Date: 2/27/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014