People v. Ramirez CA2/8

Filed 1/24/24 P. v. Ramirez CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B331690

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA080983 v.

ELSA JUDITH RAMIREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Emily Cole, Judge. Affirmed. Breana Shannen Frankel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________ After reviewing this appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we affirm. A felony complaint charged Elsa Ramirez with three counts of felony possession for sale of various controlled substances: methamphetamine (Count 1), in violation of Health and Safety

Code section 11378, and heroin (Count 2) and fentanyl (Count 3), in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351; it also charged her with felony possession of personal identifying information of 10 or more persons with intent to defraud, in violation of Penal Code section 530.5(c)(3) (Count 4). Ramirez was also charged with a misdemeanor count of possession of cannabis for sale, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11359(b) (Count 5). Represented by counsel, Ramirez waived her rights and entered a plea of no contest to Counts 2 and 4. The trial court dismissed the remaining counts, suspended imposition of sentence and placed Ramirez on felony probation for two years, assessing various fees and imposing additional conditions. One month later, Ramirez failed to appear for a restitution hearing. The court revoked probation and issued a bench warrant. About five weeks later, Ramirez appeared in court and was remanded to custody. The court set a probation violation hearing. At the hearing, the court found a probation violation based on the probation officer’s report and Ramirez’s admission of a violation, and reinstated probation on the same terms. Two months later, Ramirez failed to appear for a probation progress hearing. The court revoked probation and again issued a bench warrant. After a period of nearly five months, Ramirez was delivered to court on the bench warrant. She was remanded to custody and the court set a probation violation hearing. At the hearing, the court found a probation violation based on the probation officer’s report and Ramirez’s admission of a violation. Ramirez waived all back time as of the date of that hearing, and the court reinstated her probation with an extension of two years on Count 2.