P. v. Dawes
Filed 6/25/07 P. v. Dawes CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSEPH BRIAN DAWES, Defendant and Appellant. | C050223 (Super. Ct. Nos. ST034368A, SF086955A) |
In case No. SF086955A, defendant pleaded no contest to felony possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)), misdemeanor cruelty to a child (Pen. Code, 273a, subd. (b)), and giving false information to a police officer (Pen. Code, 148.9, subd. (a)). Pursuant to the terms of the plea, the court imposed a 10-month term, suspended for participation in the drug court program, and ordered five years of probation and attendance in a parenting class. Defendant violated probation less than a month later and probation was reinstated on the condition that he enter a residential drug program and serve the previously stayed term.
In case No. ST034368A, defendant pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol and to driving with a blood alcohol level of .26 (Veh. Code, 23152, subds. (a), (b)) with a prior felony conviction for driving under the influence within the last 10 years (Veh. Code, 23550.5), and to misdemeanor hit and run (Veh. Code, 20002, subd. (a)). Defendant received an upper term of three years which was suspended, five years of felony probation, and was ordered to comply with psychiatric medications, serve six months in jail for the hit and run, refrain from using alcohol, pay restitution, and complete drug rehabilitation programs. Defendant subsequently admitted to another violation of probation in case No. SF086955A and probation was reinstated.
In the present case, defendant was found to have violated probation in case Nos. ST034368A and SF086955A following a contested hearing. The court revoked probation in both cases, imposed the three-year term which had been suspended in case No. ST034368A, along with a $200 restitution fine and a stayed parole revocation fee of $200, and in case No. SF086955A imposed a concurrent two-year middle term for the possession of methamphetamine charge along with a $200 restitution fine, a $20 collection fee, and a stayed $200 parole revocation fee.
In case No. SF086955A, defendant used a motorcycle to drive to a night club with his 14-year-old daughter, who did not have a helmet. When he left the club he gave the officers a false name, was arrested for child endangerment, and a search of him found three syringes and .31 grams of methamphetamine.
In case No. ST034368A, defendant drove into a median, hitting two trees, then crossed the street and hit a concrete trash can in a gas station. He walked to a nearby hotel and a blood test revealed a blood alcohol level of .26.
The trial court combined a hearing on the probation violations with a preliminary hearing on a charge of burglary. The court found probable cause to hold defendant on the burglary charge and that he violated probation mainly for not obeying the law, but also for not reporting and not participating in the required programs.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court 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 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. However, there is a minor clerical error in the abstract of judgment. Defendant was sentenced to a concurrent middle term for the possession of methamphetamine count. The abstract incorrectly lists the sentence as three years, which is the upper term for possession of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a); Pen. Code, 18.) The abstract should be amended to reflect that the court imposed the two-year middle term for possession of methamphetamine.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct page one of the abstract of judgment to reflect that defendant was sentenced to a two-year concurrent term for the possession of methamphetamine. The court shall forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
NICHOLSON , J.
We concur:
SCOTLAND, P.J.
RAYE , J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
