P. v. Krier

Filed 8/1/06 P. v. Krier 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

(Butte)

----

In January 2000, defendant Ronald John Krier pled guilty to stalking. (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a).)^[1] In exchange, three counts of threatening to commit a crime resulting in death or great bodily injury (§ 422) were dismissed with a Harvey waiver.^[2] Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for five years on conditions including 270 days of incarceration and payment of a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4). He entered a Johnson waiver of accrued presentence credit.^[3]

In July 2002, a petition was filed alleging defendant violated his probation by failing to report to, and contact, the probation officer, and by failing to participate in a batterer's treatment program. Defendant admitted the violation. Probation was reinstated and extended for one year on the conditions that he serve an additional 90 days of incarceration and complete a batterer's intervention program. He entered a Johnson waiver of accrued presentence credit.

In April 2004, a petition was filed alleging defendant violated his probation by testing positive for alcohol and by being under its influence in public (§ 647, subd. (f)). Defendant failed to appear at a hearing on the petition and a bench warrant issued.

In June 2005, defendant admitted the allegation that he tested positive for alcohol. He was sentenced to state prison for two years, awarded 90 days of custody credit, 44 days of conduct credit, ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine, and a $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45).

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and 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 of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.

We concur:

DAVIS , Acting P.J.

HULL , J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Real Estate Attorney.

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

^[2] People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.

^[3] People v. Johnson (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 183.