P. v. Ballard
Filed 3/15/07 P. v. Ballard CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICKY A. BALLARD, Defendant and Appellant. | D049147 (Super. Ct. No. SCD180669) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Stephanie Sontag, Judge. Affirmed.
On November 15, 2004, Ricky A. Ballard entered a negotiated guilty plea to failing to register as a sex offender. (Pen. Code, 290, subd. (g)(2).) He waived the right to appeal denial of a motion to suppress, issues related to a prior strike conviction, and a stipulated sentence. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on probation for three years including conditions he obey all laws, report to the probation officer as directed, complete a residential substance abuse treatment program if directed by the probation officer, and avoid contact with the victim of the earlier crime. On November 1, 2005, Ballard admitted failing to obey all laws. The court revoked probation and imposed a two-year middle term in prison. It stayed the sentence and reinstated probation. On July 18, 2006, the court held an evidentiary hearing and revoked probation, finding Ballard violated probation conditions by failing to report to the probation officer as directed, failing to properly register as a sex offender, failing to present proof of enrollment in a residential substance abuse treatment program, and making contact with the victim of the earlier crime. The court lifted the stay on the two-year prison sentence and awarded Ballard 559 days of credit for time served. The record does not include a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b), former rule 30(b).)
FACTS
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment below (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576), the following occurred. In 2002 Ballard was convicted of sexual battery. (Pen. Code, 243.4, subd. (d).) He was ordered to register as a sex offender. On February 16, 2004, Ballard was detained in the area of UCSD and the officer learned he had failed to register as a sex offender. The court placed Ballard on probation.
At an evidentiary hearing on an alleged probation violation held on July 18, 2006, a probation officer testified that Ballard failed to appear at an appointment with the probation department in November 2005. He absconded until arrested in April 2006, he had not registered as a sex offender since June 2005, he failed to submit proof of enrollment in a residential treatment program, and that at the time of his arrest he was living with the victim of the earlier crime.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether waiver in the plea agreement of the right to appeal was valid; (2) whether Ballard's guilty plea was valid; (3) whether sufficient proof supports the finding that Ballard violated a condition of probation; (4) whether the trial court abused its discretion in not issuing a certificate of probable cause; (5) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying probation; (6) whether Ballard's credit for time served was properly calculated; and (7) whether Ballard was denied effective assistance of counsel.
We granted Ballard permission to file a brief on his own behalf. Our letter to him has repeatedly been returned. We spoke with Ballard's parole officer who advised us Ballard has absconded and he did not have a mailing address because Ballard is homeless. A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Ballard on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.
