P. v. Houston
Filed 10/17/07 P. v. Houston CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DENNIS HOUSTON, Defendant and Appellant. | E042922 (Super.Ct.No. FWV026869) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Mary E. Fuller, Judge. Affirmed.
David K. Rankin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On December 26, 2002, defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)); in return, the remaining allegations were to be dismissed, and defendant was promised a grant of formal probation under Proposition 36. Defendant was released on his own recognizance. Sentencing was set for January 17, 2003.
On the date set for sentencing, defendant failed to appear, and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. Defendant was eventually apprehended and was sentenced on May 23, 2003, in accordance with the negotiated disposition. He was placed on formal probation under various terms and conditions, including completing a drug program.
On July 11, 2003, defendant failed to appear for a scheduled court hearing, and a bench warrant for his arrest was issued. Defendant continued to violate the terms of Proposition 36 probation, and a petition to revoke his probation was eventually filed. The court terminated defendant from Proposition 36 probation after defendant admitted violating the probation terms. Probation was reinstated outside the Proposition 36 program.
On December 22, 2006, another petition to revoke defendants probation was filed alleging four violations of the terms of probation.
On February 16, 2007, defendant admitted violating probation and the trial court sentenced him to the middle term of two years in state prison. He was given 417 days of presentence custody credits.
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RICHLI
J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
Acting P.J.
KING
J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line attorney.
