P. v. Collins
Filed 5/31/07 P. v. Collins CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GARY SCOTTIE COLLINS, Defendant and Appellant. | E042090 (Super.Ct.Nos. FVI018861 & FVI023199) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Eric M. Nakata, Judge. Affirmed.
Randall B. Bookout, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Gary Scottie Collins (defendant) is serving three years in prison after: 1) pleading guilty to assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)) in case No. FVI018861; 2) pleading guilty to transporting methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a))[1]in case No. FVI023199; and 3) admitting to violating probation in both cases.
Appellate counsel for defendant has filed a no-issue brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
Defendant was afforded an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which we have received and considered.
Finding no arguable issues, we will affirm the judgment.
Statement of Facts and Procedure
A. FVI018861 The Assault Case
Defendant was arrested on February 29, 2004, two days after attempting to attack two victims with a metal pipe in front of a discount store. Defendant had previously seriously injured one of the victims during a fight.[2] The People charged defendant with two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)), and one count of making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, 422). On June 9, 2004, defendant pled guilty to one count of assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury, with the understanding that he would receive probation with no further jail or prison time. At the sentencing hearing held on July 30, 2004, defendant was sentenced to probation with specified conditions.
B. FVI023199 The Methamphetamine Case
On January 9, 2006, defendant was charged with possessing methamphetamine ( 11377, subd. (a)), transporting methamphetamine ( 11379, subd. (a)), being under the influence of methamphetamine ( 11550, subd. (a)), possessing a device to smoke methamphetamine ( 11364, subd. (a)), and driving on a suspended license (Veh. Code, 14601.1, subd. (a)). On February 15, 2006, appellant plead guilty to transporting methamphetamine and on the same date was placed on probation on the condition he serve 30 days in local custody.
C. Probation Violations
On November 30, 2005, defendants probation on the assault case was summarily revoked. On February 15, 2006, defendant admitting to violating the term of his probation that he violate no law, and was reinstated to probation on the condition he serve 180 days in jail, with credit for time served of 30 days.
On March 22, 2006, defendants probation was either revoked or modified. On April 3, 2006, defendants probation was either reinstated or modified on the condition that he report to Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center by May 5, 2006, with credit for time served of 78 days. Defendant was eligible for the weekender/work release program.
On June 21, 2006, defendants probation was again summarily revoked for violating the condition that he violate no law, stemming from a new charge of inflicting corporal punishment on a spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)), case No. MVI048804.
On July 5, 2006, the probation department filed two petitions to revoke probation. Between them, the petitions alleged that defendant had: left the probation office and failed to report as directed; given a new address and phone number that were not valid; failed to make restitution fine payments; failed to report to Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center for his weekender/work release commitment on May 24, 2006; and failed to provide proof of attendance at meetings for a 12-step alcohol/substance abuse program. On August 14, 2006, defendant admitted to: leaving the probation office and failing to report as directed; giving a new address and phone number that were not valid; and failing to provide proof of attendance at 12-step meetings. The trial court ordered defendant placed in a diagnostic facility for a Penal Code section 1203.03 evaluation.
On December 18, 2006, the trial court sentenced defendant to three-year concurrent prison terms on both the assault and methamphetamine cases, with credit for conduct and time served.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal on December 23, 2006, and an amended notice of appeal on January 16, 2007. Upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him.
Discussion
Defendant has filed a personal supplemental brief, which we have read and considered. Defendant argues that he did not violate his probation and directs this court to the confidential record associated with the probation officers report dated July 20, 2004. This record contains a lease agreement for the address he had reported to the probation department on May 15, 2006, bills for his cell and home phones, and photographs of him allegedly at work release. This argument amounts to a challenge to the validity of a guilty plea, which is not available on appeal without a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, 1237.5.) The trial court denied defendants petition for a certificate of probable cause on December 29, 2006. Thus, this issue is not appealable.
Defendant also argues that he was not on probation on the methamphetamine case at the time the probation officer alleged he violated his probation on that conviction. Specifically, defendant contends that another drug possession case, MVI047447, which had the same violation date of December 6, 2005, was a duplicate of the FVI023199 methamphetamine case. He further argues that he was given time served and released on MVI047447 on April 3, 2006, and so could not have been on probation on FVI023199, the case allegedly identical to MVI047447, and thus could not have later violated probation on FVI023199. Defendant points to a memo to the trial court written by a court clerk pointing out that the two cases might stem from the same incident, as they have identical police report numbers and the same violation dates. Again, this amounts to a challenge to the guilty plea without a certificate of probable cause, which is prohibited by Penal Code section 1237.5. In any case, defendant was specifically placed on probation in case No. FVI023199 on February 16, 2006.
We have completed our review of the record and find no arguable issues.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
/s/ McKinster
J.
We concur:
/s/ Hollenhorst
Acting P.J.
/s/ Richli
J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
[1]All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise indicated.
[2]These facts are taken from pages 1 and 2 of the probation officers report prepared for the July 30, 2004, sentencing.
