P. v. Puga

Filed 6/8/06 P. v. Puga CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

Appellant's counsel has filed an opening brief in which she raises no issues and asks this court to independently review the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Finding no arguable issues, we affirm the trial court's sentence.

BACKGROUND

On July 13, 2005, a 10-count information was filed charging appellant Roberto Puga in counts 1 and 7 with auto theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)); in count 2, with receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)); in count 3, possession of ammunition (Pen. Code, § 12316, subd. (b)(1)); in count 4, possession of burglary tools (Pen. Code, § 466); counts 5, 6 and 9, misdemeanor disobeying domestic relations court order (Pen. Code, § 273.6, subd. (a)); count 8, false imprisonment (Pen. Code, § 236); and in count 10, misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (e)(1)). On August 11, 2005, appellant was advised of his rights, waived them and pled guilty to counts 1, 5 and 10 with the understanding that he would receive probation and that all remaining counts would be dismissed.

At the sentencing hearing, appellant was placed on probation with standard conditions, including a year in county jail and the required drug treatment. Trial counsel objected to the initial drug treatment condition as well as the modified drug treatment condition that the court proposed as a substitute. Counsel argued that the probation department's authority to decide whether to place the appellant in a residential drug treatment program or an outpatient program was an unlawful delegation of the court's sentencing power. In addition, counsel objected on the grounds that the probation department's decision would violate appellant's right to due process because the decision would be made unilaterally without affording the appellant an opportunity to participate in the decision.

The court overruled the objection to the drug treatment condition and appellant ultimately agreed to all of the imposed probation conditions. He was given credit for 77 days of time served and was ordered to pay victim restitution of $3,781.86, a pre-sentence report fee of $560, a probation supervision fee of $240, and a restitution fine of $200.

This timely appeal followed.

Our independent review of the record reveals no arguable issues, and the judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

Lambden, J.

We concur:

_________________________

Kline, P.J.

_________________________

Richman, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.

Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Apartment Manager Lawyers.