P. v. Brewer CA3

Filed 6/20/13 P. v. Brewer CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C072446

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F06806)

v.

LAQUISHA MICHELLE BREWER,

Defendant and Appellant.

In October 2012, defendant Laquisha Michelle Brewer accosted Tilena Bell and struck her several times on the head. Defendant pled no contest to assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, an offense reasonably related to the charged offense of assault with a deadly weapon. In exchange, two related counts were dismissed with orders to stay away from the victims and a Harvey1 waiver was taken as to the younger victim. Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for five years on the condition, among others, that she serve 180 days’ incarceration with

1 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.

1

eight days’ custody credit and eight days’ conduct credit. She was ordered to make restitution to a victim and to pay a $240 restitution fine, a $240 restitution fine suspended unless probation is revoked, a $40 court operations fee, a $30 court facilities assessment, and a $25 urinalysis testing fee. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.