People v. McMahel CA3 ( 2024 )

Filed 1/24/24 P. v. McMahel 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
(El Dorado)
----
THE PEOPLE, C098542
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21CR0309)
v.
SARAH DANIELLE MCMAHEL,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appointed counsel for defendant Sarah Danielle McMahel asks this court to
review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding none, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged with felony identity theft, misdemeanor mail theft, and
misdemeanor displaying false evidence of registration. In March 2022, defendant pled no
contest to felony identity theft, and the remaining counts were dismissed with a waiver
pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 754. Per the parties’ agreement,
1
defendant was sentenced in May 2022 to the middle term of two years suspended to a
split sentence of six months in custody and 18 months on supervised release. (Pen. Code
§ 1170, subd. (h).)
The probation department filed a violation report in March 2023, alleging
defendant twice failed to report as directed to the probation officer. Defendant had
previously admitted two prior probation violations. Defendant denied the current
allegations.
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing in May 2023 and found defendant had
violated probation by failing to report to her probation officer. The court ordered
defendant to serve the remainder of her probation term (195 days) in custody. Defendant
timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and
asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues
on appeal. (People v. 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 the opening
brief. More than 30 days have elapsed and we have 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.
2
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/
MESIWALA, J.
We concur:
/s/
MAURO, Acting P. J.
/s/
DUARTE, J.
3