P. v. Smith

Filed 2/22/07  P. v. Smith 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

            Defendant appeals from a judgment sentencing him to four years in state prison, after his probation was revoked.  He claims that the trial court improperly relied upon hearsay evidence, including a statement he also contends was taken in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, to establish his probation revocation.^[1]  We find no reversible error and affirm.

Background

            In November of 2003, defendant entered a plea of no contest to the charge of possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, §  11351.5) and was placed on five years felony probation.  A petition to revoke his probation was subsequently filed, alleging that defendant had committed violations of Health and Safety Code section  11351 and Penal Code section  12021, subdivision (a)(1).  A probation revocation hearing was conducted on March 21, 2006.  The evidence presented established that defendant had been the subject of a wiretap, as part of an investigation into a crime organization referred to as â€