People v. Murphy CA1/4

Filed 10/29/25 P. v. Murphy CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A172461 v. ANNAYA S. MURPHY, (Solano County Super. Ct. No. F2301943) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Annaya Murphy was placed on probation following her no contest plea to a single count of robbery. At a contested hearing, she was found to have violated the terms of her probation by committing an additional theft offense. Murphy appeals the order reinstating her on probation. Her appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record for arguable issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel informed Murphy of her right to file a supplemental brief on her own behalf, which she has not done. We have conducted a review pursuant to Wende and find no arguable issues. Accordingly, we affirm. BACKGROUND On May 13, 2024, Murphy pled no contest to one count of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) in exchange for a maximum term of five years and the possibility of probation. On July 12th, the court suspended imposition of

sentence and placed her on formal probation for two years. As a condition of probation Murphy was ordered to serve 180 days in county jail. She was ordered to report to jail on August 30. Murphy did not report to jail as ordered and on October 28, the probation department filed a revocation petition alleging that Murphy violated the terms of her probation by committing a new theft offense. At a contested probation violation hearing, evidence was introduced that on September 30th, Murphy, along with two other women, stole six pairs of shoes from a retail shoe store. The officer who responded to the store and questioned Murphy testified that Murphy denied being on probation when asked. Based on the evidence presented, the court found that Murphy was in violation of her probation both for the theft and by lying to the officer about not being on probation. At a hearing on November 15th, the court offered Murphy a choice between the following dispositions: (1) revoke her probation and serve the low term in state prison, or (2) remain on probation, waive the 96 days of credit accrued, and serve 364 days in county jail. After conferring with her attorney, Murphy accepted the second option and waived her credits. The court reinstated probation and ordered that Murphy serve 364 days in county jail. Murphy’s notice of appeal purports to appeal the order issued following the November 15th hearing but challenges “the validity of her plea or admission.” Her request for a certificate of probable cause was denied. DISCUSSION Liberally construed, Murphy’s notice of appeal encompasses both the October order finding that she had violated the terms of her probation and the November order reinstating probation. (See In re Joshua S. (2007)