P. v. Quintana
Filed 10/23/06 P. v. Quintana 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EMILIANO R. QUINTANA, Defendant and Appellant. | A113931 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 191361) |
Counsel appointed for defendant Emiliano R. Quintana has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. We have conducted that review, conclude there are no arguable issues, and affirm.
Because defendant is appealing from a judgment of conviction entered after the trial court revoked a grant of probation made as a result of a plea bargain, the salient background information is purely procedural, and can be briefly summarized.
Defendant was charged with one count of selling cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) and one count of possessing cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5). Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant waived his right to a preliminary examination, and entered a plea of guilty to the selling count, with the understanding that imposition of sentence would be suspended and defendant would be admitted to probation. The negotiated disposition further involved dismissal of the possession count, and termination of defendant’s probation in an unrelated case.
On January 21, 2004, in accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and admitted defendant to probation for three years.
On December 16, 2004, the trial court summarily revoked defendant’s probation on the motion of the probation officer, who reported that defendant did not sign the probation agreement and had not reported for almost eight months. On March 17, 2005, the trial court reinstated probation “on all the same terms and conditions,” with the term of probation being extended to April 2007.
On April 4, 2006, the district attorney moved to have defendant’s probation revoked on the ground that defendant had committed another criminal offense. Defendant’s probation was summarily revoked that same day.
The formal hearing on the motion to revoke was held on May 15, 2006. The court heard testimony from a San Francisco police officer who found defendant in possession of cocaine for sale. Defendant then testified. While not denying the officer’s testimony, defendant wanted the court to know that he was requesting another grant of probation, in order that he could complete a drug rehab program. Defendant’s counsel argued that the arrest, and defendant’s lengthy criminal history (going back to 1987), reflected defendant’s addiction and need for treatment.
The trial court found that “defendant is in willful violation of his probation in that he possessed 17 rocks of cocaine with the intent to sell.” Defendant was thereupon arraigned for sentence, and committed to state prison for the middle term of four years.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Because defendant did not appeal from either of the orders admitting him to probation, our review can take cognizance only of potential issues or errors that occurred thereafter. (People v. Senior (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 531, 535.)
The revocation hearing complied with the due process and procedural requirements enunciated in People v. Vickers (1972) 8 Cal.3d 451. Defendant was represented at all times by competent counsel. The court’s decision to revoke defendant’s probation is supported by substantial evidence. (People v. O’Connell (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1066.)
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request for another grant of probation . It did not impose an unauthorized sentence.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
_________________________
Richman, J.
We concur:
_________________________
Kline, P.J.
_________________________
Haerle, J.
Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line Lawyers.
