P. v. Renna
Filed 7/24/06 P. v. Renna CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FOUR
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANK WILLIAM RENNA, Defendant and Appellant. | A112354 (Marin County Super. Ct. No. SC127462, SC133651, SC134936) |
Defendant appeals from orders in three dockets, revoking his probation and sentencing him to state prison. His counsel has asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
A complaint was filed in September of 2005, charging defendant with felony possession of methamphetamine for sale and misdemeanor possession of a drug-smoking device (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11378, 11364), along with prior convictions (Docket No. SC143614). Petitions for revocation of defendant's probation on the three dockets that are the subject of this appeal were also filed, based upon defendant's alleged violation of the law in the new case, and/or his violation of conditions of probation relating to drug use, based upon the facts of the new case. The preliminary hearing on the new docket also served as the probation violation hearing.[1] Defendant was held to answer in the new case and probation was revoked in the other three dockets.
The prosecution apparently elected to proceed only on the probation violation dockets. Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of six years, four months in state prison.[2] This timely appeal followed.
Sufficient evidence supported the revocation of defendant's probation in all three dockets. There was no error in the conduct of the probation revocation hearing or the finding that defendant violated probation, or in the sentencing. There are no meritorious issues to be argued on appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Sepulveda, J.
We concur:
_________________________
Rivera, J.
_________________________
Ruvolo, P. J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Real Estate Attorney.
[1] Evidence adduced at the preliminary hearing showed that an officer investigating a missing persons report contacted defendant and three other persons inside defendant's van. A consent search of the van was performed and 9.8 grams of methamphetamine and smoking pipes were located in the area where defendant had been seated. The officer opined that the drugs were possessed for sale.
[2] The sentence consisted of the aggravated term of four years on Docket No. 134936, a consecutive 20-month term on Docket No. 127462, and a consecutive eight-month term on Docket No. 133651.
