P. v. Tomlin CA2/4

Filed 4/25/13 P. v. Tomlin CA2/4 TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B240705

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA114553) v.

BETTY LOU TOMLIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marcelita V. Haynes, Judge. Affirmed. Elizabeth A. Courtenay, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________________________

Appellant Betty Lou Tomlin pled no contest to possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). Imposition of the two-year midterm sentence was suspended, and she was placed on probation and ordered to complete a drug treatment program. After the court repeatedly ordered Tomlin to complete various drug treatment programs, it revoked probation and imposed the two-year prison term. Tomlin appealed. Our independent review of the record reveals no arguable issues that would aid Tomlin. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Tomlin was charged with possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a). She pled no contest as the result of a plea agreement. In exchange, she was given a two-year midterm sentence, execution suspended. In addition, she was to serve three years of formal probation and complete one year of live-in treatment at the Sylmar Rehabilitation Center. Judge Haynes stated the reporting requirements attached to the sentence and imposed a series of fines. The fines were permanently stayed because of Tomlin’s indigence. She was released to a representative of the drug treatment program. Tomlin failed to appear at a subsequent court hearing. The probation report indicated that she had deserted probation. A bench warrant was issued, and probation was revoked. Tomlin then appeared before the court and admitted she had violated probation. The court reinstated probation and ordered her to complete the rehabilitation program. Four months later, probation was again revoked, and Tomlin was remanded into custody. She admitted violating her probation by failing to follow the drug treatment program’s rules. The court stated that it would be giving her “one more chance” before having the two-year prison term imposed. Probation was reinstated, and Tomlin was again ordered to complete a treatment program and to attend day programs. The court told Tomlin that she was to report to probation “once [she was] stabilized” and ensured that she understood those conditions.