Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Hamilton

P. v. Hamilton

Filed 10/10/07 P. v. Hamilton CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Butte)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

RANDY DONALD HAMILTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

C054986

(Super. Ct. No. CM023366)

Defendant Randy Donald Hamilton possessed prescription medication that was not his own. In December 2005, he pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a).) He was granted deferred entry of judgment pursuant to Penal Code section 1000.

In September 2006, the trial court took judicial notice of defendants plea in another case and found him in violation of his Penal Code section 1000 diversion. Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was granted Proposition 36 probation.

In October 2006 and November 2006, defendant admitted violating conditions of his Proposition 36 probation. Probation was reinstated following each violation.

In January 2007, defendant admitted violating his Proposition 36 probation by failing to submit a urine sample for testing. Having earned no custody or conduct credit, he was sentenced to state prison for two years and was ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, 1202.4), a $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (Pen. Code, 1202.45), a $175 laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, 11372.5, subd. (a)) including penalty assessments, a $525 drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, 11372.7) including penalty assessments, and a $20 court security fee ( 1465.8).

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HULL , J.

We concur:

NICHOLSON , Acting P.J.

CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.

Description	Defendant Randy Donald Hamilton possessed prescription medication that was not his own. In December 2005, he pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a).) He was granted deferred entry of judgment pursuant to Penal Code section 1000. In September 2006, the trial court took judicial notice of defendants plea in another case and found him in violation of his Penal Code section 1000 diversion. Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was granted Proposition 36 probation. In October 2006 and November 2006, defendant admitted violating conditions of his Proposition 36 probation. Probation was reinstated following each violation. The judgment is affirmed.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.