P. v. Delaney
Filed 2/6/07 P. v. Delaney CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSEPH FREDERICK DELANEY, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B192971 (Super. Ct. No. BA273194) (Los Angeles County) |
Joseph Frederick Delaney appeals from an order revoking probation and sentencing him to five years state prison for sale/transportation/offer to sell a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a).)
On January 31, 2005, appellant pleaded guilty to sale/transportation/offer to sell cocaine base. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced appellant to five years state prison, suspended execution of sentence, and granted three years formal probation subject to the condition that appellant complete a one-year residential treatment program.
On October 18, 2005, appellant admitted violating probation. The trial court reinstated probation and ordered appellant to complete a one-year residential treatment program with Volunteers of America.
On July 19, 2006, appellant admitted violating probation after he absconded and was arrested in Ohio on a warrant. The trial court revoked probation and ordered appellant to serve the five year prison sentence previously imposed. Appellant was ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $200 parole revocation fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), and a $50 lab fee plus penalty assessments (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a).)
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, he filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.
On November 13, 2006, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN, Acting P.J.
We concur:
COFFEE, J.
PERREN, J.
Frederick N. Wapner, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
______________________________
California Appellate Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director and Richard L. Fitzer, Staff Attorney, for Appellant.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
