P. v. Stamper
Filed 3/28/07 P. v. Stamper CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD STAMPER, Defendant and Appellant. | A114577 (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC058649A) |
Defendant appeals from an order finding a probation violation and a judgment 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 on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After review of the record, we determine there are no arguable issues on appeal and affirm.
Background
Defendant entered a plea of no contest to a violation of section 11350 of the Health and Safety Code (possession of cocaine) on May 18, 2005,[1]imposition of sentence was suspended, and defendant was placed on three years court probation and entered into Proposition 36 treatment.[2] Four affidavits of probation violations were filed[3]; defendant admitted the first two violations and his probation was reinstated. After he admitted the third violation he was admitted to formal probation. After a contested hearing on the fourth alleged violation, which was found to be true, defendant was sentenced to the midterm of two years in state prison.[4]
Discussion
Defendant was advised of his constitutional rights prior to the entry of his plea, as well as the consequences of his plea; counsel stipulated there was a factual basis for the plea. The court found the plea was free and voluntary. As to each admission of a probation violation, defendant was advised of his constitutional rights and the court found a factual basis for the admission. No error appears in the entry of defendants plea, in the probation violation proceedings, or in the sentencing proceedings. Defendant was represented by counsel at all times. There are no meritorious issues to be argued on appeal.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Sepulveda, J.
We concur:
_________________________
Ruvolo, P.J.
_________________________
Reardon, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
[1]As defendant entered his plea after waiving preliminary hearing, we have no transcript, nor is a probation report included in the record on appeal. The record therefore does not include the underlying facts of this case.
[2]Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, was passed by the electorate in 2000 and is codified at Penal Code sections 1210.1 and 3063.1.
[3]The third affidavit was actually entitled an amended affidavit of probation violation, but it was filed after defendant admitted the second affidavit of probation violation.
[4]Another amended affidavit of probation violation was filed on the date of defendants sentencing on the contested probation violation. The allegations of this affidavit appear to be the same as those in the affidavit of probation violation filed earlier, which was the subject of the contested hearing, but for a correction in the date of the first violation. The transcript from the sentencing on the contested probation violation states nothing about this last amended affidavit of probation violation, although the minute order from that date indicates that defendant admitted the violation, before being sentenced to two years in state prison.
