P. v. Washington
Filed 7/30/07 P. v. Washington 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. DEMANDRE WASHINGTON, Defendant and Appellant. | A116898 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 193070) |
Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378) and was placed on probation. After repeated violations of probation, he was eventually sentenced to two years in state prison. His attorney on appeal has asked this court to review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
In May of 2004, defendant was charged by complaint with a variety of misdemeanor and felony offenses and, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, pleaded guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, 11378.)[1] The imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for three years.[2] He subsequently admitted violations of probation in September of 2004, April of 2005, July of 2005, and October of 2005. Probation was reinstated and defendant was ordered to serve additional jail time, for each violation.
In June of 2006, another petition to revoke probation was filed, this time alleging that defendant was involved in an incident of domestic violence. He failed to appear and a bench warrant was issued. In November of 2006, a supplemental probation report was filed, indicating that defendant had been arrested for another domestic violence incident, had neglected to report to the court and to the Probation Department, and had failed to complete the domestic violence counseling as ordered. After a contested probation violation hearing, the court found that defendant had violated his probation, and he was sentenced to the midterm of two years in state prison. This timely appeal followed.
No error appears in the initial proceedings. Defendant was advised of, and waived, his constitutional rights and was advised of the consequences of his plea. A factual basis was found for his plea. No error appears in his initial sentencing, in the myriad of probation violation proceedings, or in his commitment to state prison. Defendant was represented by counsel throughout. There are no issues to be argued on appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Sepulveda, J.
We concur:
_________________________
Ruvolo, P.J.
_________________________
Reardon, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
[1] The remaining charges, possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5), possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)), false identification to police officer (Pen. Code, 148.9, subd. (a), a misdemeanor), two counts of misdemeanor spousal battery (Pen. Code, 243, subd. (e)(1)), misdemeanor infliction of corporal injury on a spouse (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor malicious mischief (Pen. Code, 594, subd. (b)(2)(A)), were dismissed.
[2] Since defendant pleaded guilty, the underlying facts are not at issue. From the probation report, it appears that officers approached defendant, believing him to be a suspect in a domestic violence incident, and he gave a false name to the officers. They arrested him and found methamphetamine and cocaine base in his possession.
