P. v. Dickerson

Filed 6/26/08 P. v. Dickerson CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

APPEAL from judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Richard R. Romero, Judge. Affirmed.

Janice Wellborn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Christopher Dickerson appeals from the judgment entered following an order revoking probation. Previously he had pled guilty to count 2, possession of a controlled substance, (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)) and had been sentenced to prison for the upper term of three years with execution of the sentence suspended. Pursuant to the negotiated plea, count 1, possession for sale of cocaine base, (Health & Saf. Code,  11351.5) was dismissed and appellant waived credit for time served. As a condition of probation, appellant was ordered to complete a six-month to twelve-month residential program and to submit to periodic anti-narcotic tests as directed by his probation officer.[1]

Appellants motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5 was denied.

Appellants motion for pretrial discovery was denied without prejudice. After filing a supplemental declaration in support of the motion, the motion was granted in part and denied in part. Following an in camera hearing, the court concluded there were no complaints of officer misconduct to be disclosed.

Appellants motion to proceed in pro per was granted.

At the probation violation hearing, Gail Palaeologus, a deputy probation officer, testified appellant was in violation of his probation in that he was not reporting to his probation officer, was not making payments toward his financial obligation and failed to report for testing for six scheduled drug tests. Appellant stated to Ms. Palaeologus that he was unable to pay for the program, so he left. There were, however, free programs for indigent people. Appellant had paid $85 toward his financial obligation of $3,149. Ms. Palaeologus had seen an enrollment letter and a completion letter from House of Hope in the file. House of Hope is a sober living home and but a residential treatment program.

Earl L. Miller, a deputy probation officer for Los Angeles County, was assigned to appellant. Mr. Miller testified appellant, never presented to [him] a letter of enrollment into a drug program, and he never presented a letter of completion. . . . [Appellant] never gave [him] a letter from the sober living program to show that he was affirmatively living there. He never told [Mr. Miller] that he was leaving the program. [He] could never catch up with [appellant.] [Mr. Miller] could never find out what his actual address was. Finally, [appellant] missed six tests almost consecutively, and he never reported for supervision. However, he did show up on occasions on his own volition and walked into [the] office without an appointment. Mr. Miller explained to appellant each time that he had a violation . . . . Appellant missed testing on January 10, 2006, February 7, 2006, March 2, 2006, April 5, 2006 and May 3, 2006. Mr. Miller further testified that he discussed with appellant that House of Hope was not a residential program but a sober living program and that it was appellants responsibility to get into a residential program. If appellant had said he had problems, Mr. Miller would have placed him in a residential program but appellant never said he had any problems.

The trial court found appellant in violation of probation in that he failed to enroll and complete a residential drug program as ordered by the court and the probation officer. The court concluded that the probation officer clearly told appellant that House of Hope did not qualify and volunteered to assist appellant in finding a program free of charge but appellant chose to ignore the offer and instead, fashion [his] own conditions of probation. The court also found appellant failed to report for the drug tests as required.

After review of the record, appellants court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.

On February 13, 2008, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist and that appellant has, by virtue of counsels compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

MANELLA, J.

We concur:

WILLHITE, Acting P. J.

SUZUKAWA, J.

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

[1]The evidence at the preliminary hearing established that on March 23, 2005, at approximately 9:15 p.m., in the City of Long Beach, police officers recovered a clear baggie containing a large quantity of an off-white, rock-like substance from appellants sock, a smaller clear baggie containing an off-white substance from appellants front right pant pocket and approximately $170 in cash. It was stipulated that one of the plastic bags containing pieces of an off-white substance, net weight 20.59 grams, contained cocaine base and that another plastic bag containing an off-white substance, net weight 0.32 grams contained methamphetamine. A narcotics detective testified it was his opinion that appellant possessed the cocaine for sale.