P. v. Ivy
Filed 6/20/06 P. v. Ivy CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EARNEST BERNARD IVY, Defendant and Appellant. |
C049940
(Super. Ct. No. SF084764A)
|
In January 2002, defendant Earnest Bernard Ivy pled guilty to being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. Imposition of sentence was suspended, and he was placed on probation for five years on conditions including service of a period of incarceration and payment of a $200 restitution fine. In December 2002, a petition was filed alleging that defendant violated his probation by committing three Vehicle Code violations and by failing to pay the restitution fine. He admitted the violations, and his probation was modified to include abstinence from alcohol and drugs, submission to testing for alcohol and drugs, and participation in a treatment program.
In May 2004, a petition was filed alleging that defendant violated probation by failing to pay the restitution fine, by not obeying reasonable directions of the probation officer, and by failing to report his living arrangements. Defendant admitted the violations, and his probation was modified to include a $200 fine.
In September 2004, a petition was filed alleging that defendant violated his probation again by, among other things, committing spousal battery. Following a contested hearing, the trial court found the allegation true. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for two years, was awarded 271 days of presentence custody credit and 134 days of conduct credit, and was ordered to pay the $200 restitution fine and a $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked.
Defendant appeals, and we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to review the record and to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
SCOTLAND , P.J.
We concur:
DAVIS , J.
NICHOLSON , J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Apartment Manager Attorneys.
