People v. Rupp CA4/1 ( 2015 )

Filed 3/19/15 P. v. Rupp 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D066718
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD255753)
JACQUELINE R. RUPP,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Polly H.
Shamoon and Timothy R. Walsh, Judges. Affirmed.
Cannon & Harris and Donna L. Harris, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Jacqueline R. Rupp appeals from a judgment following her guilty plea to a single
count of possession of methamphetamine for purpose of sale (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11378). Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal,
but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal. 3d 436 (Wende). Rupp has not responded to our invitation to file a
supplemental brief. After having independently reviewed the entire record for error as
required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Arising out of a theft of merchandise at Walmart and the subsequent discovery of
drugs in Rupp's vehicle,1 Rupp was charged with possession for sale of heroin (Health &
Saf. Code, § 11351); possession of heroin (id., § 11350, subd. (a)); possession for sale of
methamphetamine (id., § 11378); possession of methamphetamine (id., § 11377, subd.
(a)); burglary (Pen. Code, § 459); grand theft of personal property (id., § 487, subd. (a));
petty theft with prior theft convictions (id., §§ 484, 666, subd. (a)); and driving with a
suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a)). The information further alleged
three probation denial priors. (Pen. Code, § 1203, subd. (e)(4).)
On June 25, 2014, Rupp pled guilty to possession for sale of methamphetamine
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), and the People dismissed the remainder of the complaint.
The guilty plea form that Rupp signed stated that the People had agreed that Rupp would
be sentenced to 16 months in local custody, and the trial court recited that agreement on
the record when taking Rupp's guilty plea. As the factual basis for the guilty plea, Rupp
stated that she knowingly possessed methamphetamine for the purpose of sale.
1 We base our factual description on the probation officer's report and the
preliminary hearing transcript.
2
The trial court sentenced Rupp to 16 months in local custody and ordered that the
sentence be served concurrently with the sentences in three other cases. At sentencing
the trial court rejected Rupp's request that she be placed on probation with a reference to
drug court.
Rupp filed a notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause from the
trial court for the appeal. In the request for the certificate of probable cause, Rupp stated
that she was not adequately advised by her attorney of the consequences of her plea or the
possibility of a Marsden hearing (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 118).
II
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and
proceedings in the trial court. Counsel presented no argument for reversal but invited this
court to review the record for error in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal. 3d 436.
Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel identified as a possible but not
arguable issues (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Rupp's request
for a grant of probation with a referral to drug court; and (2) whether the record on appeal
supports a claim that Rupp received ineffective assistance of counsel as to the
consequences of her plea.
After we received counsel's brief, we gave Rupp an opportunity to file a
supplemental brief, but Rupp did not respond.
A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal. 3d 436, and Anders,
supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issue suggested by counsel, has disclosed no
3
reasonably arguable appellate issue. Rupp has been adequately represented by counsel
on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
4