People v. Olivares CA4/1

Filed 10/22/20 P. v. Olivares CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D077125

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF002874)

GUADALUPE OLIVARES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Christopher J. Plourd, Judge. Affirmed. Kenneth J. Vandevelde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Guadalupe Olivares entered into a plea agreement under the terms of which she pleaded no contest to transportation of a controlled substance for sale (Health and Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)). The parties agreed to a four- year term with a split sentence of two years in custody and two years in community supervision. The remaining charges and allegations were dismissed. Olivares was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement.

One of the conditions of supervision was to attend Narcotics Anonymous. Olivares objected to the condition because Narcotics Anonymous is religion based. The condition was imposed, but later removed. The court made a finding of ability to pay and imposed various fines, fees, and assessments. Olivares filed a timely notice of appeal but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating he has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Olivares the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS According to the change of plea, Olivares transported methamphetamine into California for purpose of sale. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether the sentence imposed was consistent with the plea agreement; 2. Whether Olivares’s custody credits were properly calculated; and 3. Whether the fines, fees, and assessments were authorized.