P. v. Johnson

Filed 10/25/06 P. v. Johnson CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In February 2005 defendant pleaded no contest to second degree burglary and admitted a prior strike allegation. Pursuant to a plea bargain, additional charges were dismissed. On April 7, 2005, the court struck defendant’s prior strike and placed him on three years’ probation, subject to conditions that included successful completion of a drug and alcohol treatment program. The trial court cautioned defendant that he would receive a three-year aggravated prison term if he violated probation.

In June 2006 defendant admitted that he violated his probation by leaving his residential drug treatment program without permission, failing to complete the program, and failing to keep a probation appointment. The court found a factual basis for defendant’s admission and found him in violation of probation. Consistent with the court’s earlier warning, defendant was sentenced to the three-year upper term for second degree burglary, with 811 days of custody credit. The court imposed a $200 restitution fine, a $20 court security fee, and a $200 parole revocation fine, the latter suspended pending completion of parole. Defendant was also ordered to undergo genetic marker testing.

Defendant’s appellate counsel has filed a brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and asks this court to review the trial court proceedings. We have done so. We agree with counsel that there are no issues that warrant briefing. Defendant was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, the probation revocation and sentencing proceedings were conducted according to the governing law and procedure, and substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that defendant violated the conditions of his probation. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

Siggins, J.

We concur:

_________________________

McGuiness, P. J.

_________________________

Parrilli, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.

Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.