Filed 10/5/18 P. v. Dooley CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DAVID LEON DOOLEY,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
F074973
(Super. Ct. No. CRM034905)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Harry L. Jacobs, Judge. (Retired Judge of the San Francisco Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
Melissa Baloian Sahatjian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appointed counsel for defendant David Leon Dooley asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant was advised of his 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. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On July 20, 2014, defendant inflicted corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon the mother of his child.
On August 19, 2014, defendant pled no contest to felony infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)).[1] The trial court granted three years’ probation with six months of jail time, as agreed.
On December 4, 2015, defendant admitted violating probation. The trial court revoked and reinstated probation with directions to complete a six-month batterer’s treatment program.
On February 2, 2016, defendant admitted violating probation again. The trial court revoked and reinstated probation with a Mental Health Treatment Court Participant Contract.
On March 8, 2016, defendant admitted his third probation violation. The trial court revoked and reinstated probation and ordered defendant to complete a residential program.
On May 31, 2016, defendant admitted his fourth probation violation. The trial court sentenced defendant to the midterm of three years, suspended execution of the sentence, and ordered defendant to complete a different program.
On January 4, 2017, at a contested hearing, the trial court found defendant had violated probation a fifth time. The court noted defendant had been given chances at programs and he had failed at those chances, largely because he wanted to use drugs and have contact with the mother of his child, both of which were prohibited. The court terminated probation and ordered the three-year term executed.
On January 6, 2017, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
We have undertaken an examination of the entire record, and we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. The record demonstrates defendant received extensive assistance and support through his participation in the Mental Health Treatment Court. The procedural history above mentions only a fraction of the hearings held for defendant, and does not include any mention of the advice and encouragement he received from the court, or the support and services he received from the team involved in his case. Nevertheless, defendant refused or was unable to take advantage of the opportunities provided him.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
