P. v. Brown

Filed 5/22/06 P. v. Brown CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Shasta)

----

In May 2004, defendant Todd Allen Brown pled guilty to grand theft. As part of the plea agreement, two misdemeanor cases were dismissed, one with a Harvey waiver (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754) with respect to restitution. Imposition of sentence was suspended, and he was placed on probation on the conditions, among others, that he serve 90 days of incarceration with credit for 46 days and pay a fine, a $400 restitution fine, a $28.50 crime prevention fine, and a $20 court security fee.

In December 2004, a petition was filed alleging that defendant violated his probation by, among other things, failing to report to the probation department. His probation was revoked but reinstated on the condition he serve an additional 30 days of incarceration.

In February 2005, a petition was filed alleging that defendant violated his probation by, among other things, resisting a peace officer in violation of Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a)(1). His probation was revoked but reinstated and extended for two years, with defendant waiving all custody credits up to that point and stipulating to an upper term suspended sentence of three years.

In August 2005, a petition was filed alleging that defendant violated his probation by failing to report for urine testing. Defendant admitted the allegation. The court ordered execution of the prison sentence, awarded defendant 30 days of custody credit and 14 days of conduct credit, and confirmed the fine, the restitution fine, the crime prevention fine, and the court security fee previously imposed as conditions of probation. In addition, a $400 restitution fine was imposed but suspended unless parole is revoked (Pen. Code, § 1202.45).

Defendant appeals, and we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

The judgment is affirmed.

SCOTLAND , P.J.

We concur:

DAVIS , J.

BUTZ , J.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Apartment Manager Lawyers.