P. v. Hendrickson

Filed 8/17/06 P. v. Hendrickson CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Herbert J. Exarhos and Jan I. Goldsmith, Judges. Affirmed.

On June 11, 2003, Jeffrey Hendrickson entered a negotiated guilty plea to petty theft (Pen. Code, § 484)^[1] and admitted having suffered a prior theft conviction (§ 666). On July 10, 2003, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on probation for three years, including conditions he serve 365 days in custody, report to the probation department as directed, and not use a controlled substance without a prescription. On April 4, 2005, Hendrickson admitted that he failed to report to the probation department as directed and tested positive for presence of a controlled substance. The court revoked probation and sentenced him to prison for the three-year upper term.^[2] The record does not include a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 30(b).)

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether Hendrickson's admission of having violated the terms of his probation was valid; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the upper term; and (3) whether Hendrickson's trial counsel provided effective assistance.

We granted Hendrickson permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. We requested additional briefing on the issue of whether the trial court complied with People v. Vickers (1972) 18 Cal.3d 451. After Hendrickson's appellate counsel provided the court with additional information, we determined that further briefing was unnecessary, and so advised the parties. A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Hendrickson on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

AARON, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

NARES, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.

^[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

^[2] Because Hendrickson entered a guilty plea, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the conviction. (§ 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.) We need not recite the facts.