Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 19, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Scott CA2/5

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: B346633

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/19/26 P. v. Scott CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B346633

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. NA122599)
v.

MIESHA LICOLE SCOTT,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, James D. Otto, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

——————————
Miesha Licole Scott pleaded no contest to one count of
attempted murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187 & 664), arising out of an
incident during a custody exchange in which Scott hit the victim
with her vehicle. Scott admitted to having suffered a strike
conviction under the Three Strikes law. (§§ 667 & 1170.12.) The
trial court sentenced Scott to the middle term of seven years,
doubled to 14 years pursuant to the Three Strikes law.
Scott timely appealed the judgment and requested a
certificate of probable cause. The trial court took no action on the
certificate of probable cause.
We appointed counsel. After reviewing the record, counsel
filed an opening brief asking this court to review the record
independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436,
441 (Wende). On January 29, 2026, we advised Scott that she
had 30 days to submit any contentions or issues she wished us to
consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied no
arguable issues exist and that Scott’s counsel has fully satisfied
his responsibilities under Wende. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528
U.S. 259, 279–284; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2
DISPOSITION

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

MOOR, J.

WE CONCUR:

BAKER, Acting P. J.

KIM (D.), J.

3