Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Monterey County Super. Ct. No. SS090778
Mihara, J.
In February 2009, defendant Cholena East Star Loewenthal refused to leave a hotel room, and the police were summoned. She insisted that she lived in the room, and she tried to evade the officers who were trying to escort her away from the hotel. After she was “tackled” and placed under arrest, she “broke free and hid under a table.” She continued to resist the officers, but she was ultimately taken to the police department. A bindle containing methamphetamine was found during a search of her person at the police department. At the time, defendant was on probation for a December 2008 narcotics conviction. She had been diagnosed with “Epileptic Brain Seizures,” “Bi-Polar I Disorder,” and “Schizoaffective Disorder” for which she had been prescribed medication.
Defendant was charged by complaint with felony possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), misdemeanor assault on a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 241, subd. (c)), misdemeanor trespass (Pen. Code, § 602, subd. (o)), and misdemeanor resisting a public officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). She pleaded no contest to the possession and resisting counts in exchange for dismissal of the other counts and a grant of probation. Defendant agreed to participate in “Drug Treatment Court” (DTC) and was released on her own recognizance. During her participation in DTC, defendant reported that she was experiencing hallucinations, and she was instructed to take her prescribed medications. It appeared likely that defendant would successfully complete the 18-month DTC program.
The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, placed defendant on probation for three years with various fines, fees, and conditions, including a 78-day jail term, which was satisfied by credit for time served. The probation conditions included the condition that “[s]he has to be on medication that the physician tells her she needs to be on pursuant to the diagnosis by the psychiatrist, and that’s who’s authorized to tell her what medications would be proper.” Defendant’s trial counsel objected to the medication condition. The trial court overruled the objection but noted that the issue could be set for a hearing “in the future” if the medications “are bothering her.” Defendant’s trial counsel explicitly acknowledged that he was not asking for such a hearing. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal challenging only the probation conditions.
Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no issues. Defendant was notified of her right to submit written argument on her own behalf but has failed to avail herself of the opportunity. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal.
The probation order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P. J. McAdams, J.