P. v. Smith

Filed 8/22/06 P. v. Smith CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

Defendant appeals from a judgment following his plea of no contest. His counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in a reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) We have reviewed the record on appeal and find no meritorious issues to be argued.

A complaint filed on August 24, 2004 charged defendant with failing to register as a sex offender. (Pen. Code,[1] § 290, subd. (g)(2).) On November 5, 2004, defendant pleaded no contest to the charge. Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, judgment and sentencing were deferred for one year. It was further agreed that if defendant did not commit any new offenses during the one-year period and complied with specified conditions, the allegation would be dismissed and defendant would be allowed to withdraw his plea. If defendant, however, committed any new offense or violated any conditions, he could be sentenced to state prison for up to three years.

Defendant failed to appear on November 4, 2005 at the one-year review hearing. According to the prosecutor, defendant had been arrested in Sonoma County on a charge of domestic violence. (§ 273.5.) The court issued a no bail bench warrant.

Defendant subsequently appeared on November 29, 2005 and requested a hearing to determine if he had violated the conditions imposed when judgment and sentencing were deferred in November 2004. At a hearing on December 7, 2005, the prosecutor contended that defendant had violated a condition of the deferred entry of judgment to obey all laws because he had been arrested in Sonoma County on three cases one of which, a domestic violence charge, was still pending. The court continued the matter for documentary proof. At a hearing on January 13, 2006, the prosecution submitted a criminal docket and a plea waiver from Sonoma County Superior Court. These documents demonstrated that defendant had pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of section 273.5 on November 17, 2005, and that the offense was committed on October 16, 2005. Defense counsel objected to the admission of the documents into evidence because he had not been given an opportunity to review them until the day of the hearing. Defense counsel, however, rejected the court's offer of additional time to review them indicating that he â€