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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DANIEL SAUCEDA,
Defendant and Appellant.
A114422
(San MateoCounty
Super. Ct. No. SC-059759A)
Defendant Daniel Sauceda appeals an order revoking his probation. He was sentenced to 16 months in prison on his underlying conviction of making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422).[1] Counsel has advised that examination of the record reveals no arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel has advised her client in writing that a Wende brief was being filed and that appellant had the right to personally file a supplemental brief in this case within 30 days. We affirm.
Background
According to the probation report, in case No. SC-059759A, on September 27, 2005, defendant left numerous telephone messages threatening to kill his former girlfriend (XG) and her new boyfriend (JM). In case No. NM-349184A, on May 22, 2005, defendant entered XG's home through a window and when confronted by JM, punched JM in the face and back.
On November 21, 2005, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant pled no contest in case No. SC-059759A to making a criminal threat in exchange for which one count of stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a)), one count of stalking in violation of a court order (§ 646.9, subd. (b)), another criminal threats count, a count of misdemeanor making an annoying or obscene telephone call (§ 653m), and case No. NM-349184A were dismissed. The record reflects that he freely and voluntarily entered his no contest plea.
On December 21, 2005, the court suspended imposition of sentence, and placed defendant on probation for a term of three years subject to standard conditions of probation. In addition, he was subject to a restraining order as to the victims, and required to participate in domestic violence counseling. He was given credit for time served, and the court imposed a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a $200 parole revocation fine, which was suspended pending completion of parole (§ 1202.45).
On April 4, 2006, an affidavit of probation violation and a motion for issuance of a bench warrant were filed based on a report that on February 26, 2006, defendant used marijuana, on March 5 consumed intoxicating liquor, on March 13 left a residential treatment program short of completing it, and failed to apprise his probation officer of his whereabouts and report his new address. On May 3, 2006, probation was summarily revoked. On May 12, the affidavit of probation violation was amended to include defendant's violation of the protective order by contacting the victim on March 29, 2006.
On June 23, 2006, defendant admitted violating his probation by violating the restraining order. The record reflects that his admission was free and voluntary. The court accepted the admission and struck the remaining probation violation allegations. The court properly revoked defendant's probation and sentenced him to the 16-month low term on the section 422 offense, with 290 days credit for time served. The prior $200 restitution fine and a $20 security surcharge fee were ordered paid. Defendant was afforded proper notice of the claims establishing his probation violation and afforded due process at the revocation hearing.
Defendant was represented by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, and appeared at every hearing. We conclude there are no arguable issues.
[1] All undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.
* Judge of the San Francisco County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Description
Defendant appeals an order revoking his probation. Defendant was sentenced to 16 months in prison on his underlying conviction of making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, S 422). Counsel has advised that examination of the record reveals no arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel has advised her client in writing that a Wende brief was being filed and that appellant had the right to personally file a supplemental brief in this case within 30 days. Court affirm.
