P. v. Petrich

Filed 11/30/05 P. v. Petrich CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CAROLE PETRICH, Defendant and Appellant.

B184098 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA059802)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Clifford L. Klein, Judge. Affirmed.

Jonathan B. Steiner and Gary Mandinach, under appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Carole Petrich appeals from judgment entered following a jury trial in which she was convicted of possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), the unauthorized possession of a hypodermic needle or syringe, a misdemeanor (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 4140), and possession of a smoking device, a misdemeanor (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.) Imposition of sentence was suspended and she was placed on formal probation for three years upon various terms and conditions.

After review of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.

On September 30, 2005, we advised appellant that she had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which she wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against her in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

EPSTEIN, P.J.

We concur:

HASTINGS, J.

CURRY, J.

Courtesy of California Legal Resource Directory, a source for providers and consumers of legal resources. Because we know legal.

Coronado Lawyers are available and standing by to help you.