P.
v. Brennan
Filed 6/25/13
P. v. Brennan CA2/6
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 SIX
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
JAMES THOMAS BRENNAN,
Defendant
and Appellant.
2d Crim. No.
B244380
(Super. Ct. No. BA394829)
(Super. Ct. No. BA399400)
(Los Angeles County)
James Thomas Brennan appeals from a September
18, 2012 order revoking probation and sentencing him to concurrent three-year
BA394829 and BA399400.
In Case No. BA394829 appellant pled to guilty
possession for sale of cocaine base
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and admitted suffering two prior
strike convictions (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds.
(a)-(d))
title="">[1] and three prior prison term enhancements (§
667.5, subd. (b)). Pursuant to an March
15, 2012 open plea agreement, appellant was conditionally released to enroll
and complete a one-year residential drug treatment program at the Los Angeles
Transition Center (LATC).
On April 18, 2012, the trial court issued a
bench warrrant after it received a letter from LATC reporting that appellant
was terminated from the program. The
trial court recalled the bench warrant on April 20, 2012, and ordered appellant
to return to LATC and complete the one-year residential program.
On July 19, 2012, appellant was held to
answer in case number BA399400 after he was arrested on new charges of
possession of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) On August 27, 2012, appellant entered a nolo
contendre plea to possession of cocaine base, admitted suffering two prior
strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d))
667.5, subd. (b)), and admitted that he was out on bail in case number BA394829
when he committed the offense (§ 12022.1).
Appellant waived his Arbuckle rights
in both cases (People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749) and was
conditionally released to enroll in and complete a one-year treatment program
at First to Serve. Appellant was ordered
to return to court on August 27, 2013, for probation and sentencing. The trial court stated that if appellant
successfully completed the one-year residential treatment program, it would
strike the prior strike enhancements in both cases, grant three years probation
in both cases, and award credit for the time appellant was in the treatment
program. Appellant was warned that
"[i]f you don't [complete the residential treatment program], it's an open
plea, and I'm going to send you to prison."
The trial court ordered the sheriff to deliver appellant
to the First to Serve drug residential treatment program but appellant was
dropped off at the Homeless Health Care Center.
On September 7, 2012, the trial court approved appellant's treatment at
the Homeless Healthcare Center and ordered appellant to return to court on
October 16, 2012.
On September 13 2012, motions were filed to
revoke probation in Case Nos. BA394829 and BA399400 after appellant was charged
in a third case with possession of methamphetamine (Case No. BA402534)
On September 18, 2012, appellant appeared in
court and argued that he was given the opportunity to enter a residential drug
treatment program. The trial court
revoked probation in number BA394829 and BA399400, found that appellant abandoned
the one-year residential drug treatment program, struck the prior strike
enhancements in each case, and in each case, sentenced appellant to three years
state prison and imposed and stayed the one-year enhancements on the prison
prior enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
In each case, appellant was ordered to pay a $240 restitution fine (§
1202.4, subd. (b)), a $240 parole revocation fine (§
1202.45), a $50 lab fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)) a
$40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 conviction
assessment. (Gov. Code, § 70373.) The third case, case number BA402534, was
dismissed pursuant to section 1385.
We appointed
appeal. After counsel’s examination of
the record, she filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.
On June 4, 2013, we advised appellant that he
had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he
wished us to consider. On June 17, 2013,
appellant filed a supplemental letter
brief, stating among other things, that he was not provided the opportunity
to participate in a residential treatment program and the trial court erred in
revoking probation and sentencing appellant to state prison.
We have reviewed the entire record and are
satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with her
responsibilities and that no arguable
issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443; People v. Kelly
(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.)
The judgments in Case Nos. BA399400 and
BA394829 are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN,
J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
PERREN, J.
David M. Horwitz, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
______________________________
Marilyn Weiss Alper, under appointment by the
Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code
unless otherwise stated.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] All statutory references are to the Penal Code
unless otherwise stated.
