California Court of Appeal Jan 28, 2022 No. E077842Unpublished
Filed 1/28/22 P. v. Sullivan CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E077842
v. (Super.Ct.Nos. FMB20000425 & FMB20000574) CAROL ELAINE SULLIVAN, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Shannon L.
Faherty, Judge. Affirmed.
Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The court found defendant and appellant, Carol Elaine Sullivan, in violation of her
probation in two separate cases, revoked her probation, and sentenced her to concurrent
1
terms of two years of imprisonment. After defendant filed a notice of appeal, this court
appointed counsel to represent her.
Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the facts, a
statement of the case, and identifying one potentially arguable issue: whether the court
erred in terminating defendant’s probation in both lower court cases and sentencing her to
September 15, 2020, defendant pled guilty to the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle
(Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a), count 1). As provided in the plea agreement, the court
sentenced defendant to three years of felony probation and dismissed another case of
defendant’s.
Defendant was released from custody on September 15, 2020, but failed to report
to probation. On September 20, defendant was arrested for petty theft; she was released
on September 21. On October 20, officers conducted a visit at defendant’s last know
residence; the home was abandoned. On October 28, personnel from the probation
department filed a petition for revocation of defendant’s probation. The probation officer
alleged defendant violated the terms of her probation that she violate no law and that she
report to probation.
On November 19, 2020, the People charged defendant by felony complaint with
assault upon a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 245, subdivision (c), count 1) (case No.
FMB20000574). On December 3, 2020, defendant pled guilty to an interlineated count 3
3
charge of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code,
§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) and admitted violating her probation in case No. FMB20000425.
On January 4, 2021, pursuant to the plea agreement in case No. FMB20000574,
the court reinstated defendant’s probation in case No. FMB20000425 and ordered her
released to a mental health court treatment program after serving 67 days in jail, with
credit for 60 days. The court also granted defendant three years of felony probation,
releasing her to the mental health court treatment program.
On January 25, 2021, the court revoked defendant’s probation in both cases when
she failed to appear for her mental health court review hearing. On April 19, in case No.
FMB20000425, the court ordered defendant released back to mental health court after
serving 100 days in jail, with credit for 90 days. In case No. FMB20000574, the court
also released defendant back to mental health court; the court ordered defendant to serve
100 days in a jail with credit for 93 days.
On May 3, 2021, the court revoked defendant’s probation in both cases after she
failed to appear at her mental health court hearing. At a hearing on July 12, the court
observed that defendant had been screened and found ineligible for mental health court.
The court also observed that defendant had been charged with a new misdemeanor
offense.
At the hearing July 26, 2021, the court found defendant in violation of her
probation in both cases. Defense counsel argued defendant should be released back on
probation. The People argued that sentencing was appropriate as defendant had been
unsuccessful in mental health court on two grants of probation. The court observed: “It
4
does weigh heavily in the Court’s mind she was on two grants of felony probation and
then did also pick up a new misdemeanor case.”
In case No. FMB20000574, the court revoked defendant’s probation and imposed
the low term of two years of imprisonment, awarding her 147 days of credit. In case No.
FMB20000425, the court also revoked defendant’s probation and sentenced her to the
low term of two years of imprisonment to be served concurrently to that in case No.
FMB20000574; the court awarded her 159 days of credit. The court dismissed the
misdemeanor case on the People’s motion.
II. DISCUSSION
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
she has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we
have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgments are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER Acting P. J. We concur:
SLOUGH J.
FIELDS J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's decision to revoke the defendant's probation and impose concurrent two-year prison sentences after the defendant repeatedly failed to comply with probation terms and mental health court requirements.
Issues
Did the trial court err in terminating the defendant’s probation in both cases and sentencing her to state prison?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.”