P. v. Reed
Filed 10/15/07 P. v. Reed CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RYAN ANTONIO REED, Defendant and Appellant. | B198774 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA060708) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
James R. Brandlin, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance from Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________________________
Ryan Antonio[1]Reed appeals from the judgment entered following an order revoking his probation and imposing a two-year state prison sentence as a result of his earlier no contest plea to committing identity theft.
According to the Probation Officers Report, Reed and a confederate used a stolen check and false identification to purchase items at a department store in January 2005. Reed was charged by felony complaint with committing identity theft and second degree burglary (Pen. Code, 530.5, subd. (a), 459).[2] Pursuant to a negotiated agreement, Reed pleaded no contest on February 10, 2005 to committing identity theft. Imposition of sentence was suspended, and Reed was placed on three years of formal probation on condition that he serve 90 days in county jail and complete 10 days of work for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The remaining count was dismissed on the Peoples motion.
On August 25, 2005, the trial court summarily revoked Reeds probation and issued a warrant for his arrest after he failed to provide the court with proof that he had completed the 10 days of Caltrans work by August 16, 2005. On October 31, 2005, Reed waived his right to a revocation hearing and admitted that he had violated his probation by failing to complete the 10 days of Caltrans work. The trial court revoked and reinstated his probation with credit for 10 days served in jail in lieu of 10 days of Caltrans work.[3]
On April 6, 2006, Reed again waived his right to a revocation hearing and admitted that he had violated his probation by failing to report to his probation officer. The trial court revoked and reinstated his probation on condition that he serve 29 days in county jail, with credit for time served.
On January 10, 2007, the trial court informed Reed that if he admitted he had absconded from probation and had not made payments towards his court-ordered financial obligations, he would be sentenced to the lower term of 16 months in state prison. Reed declined to admit he had violated his probation conditions and requested a revocation hearing.
The probation revocation hearing commenced on January 26, 2007 and concluded on February 9, 2007. After Reeds two probation officers testified, Reed presented conflicting testimony that he consistently had reported to his probation officers as required and that he had provided them with proof of his address, his grandmothers residence. The court found that Reeds testimony was not credible and determined from the probation officers testimony that Reed had absconded from probation.
On March 22, 2007, after listening to counsels arguments, the court declined to reinstate Reeds probation. The court sentenced him to the middle term of two years in state prison and awarded him 300 days of presentence credit (201 actual days and 99 days of conduct credit). The court ordered Reed to pay a $20 security assessment and a $200 restitution fine. A parole revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45.
We appointed counsel to represent Reed on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an Opening Brief in which no issues were raised. On July 30, 2007, we advised Reed that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Reeds attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
ZELON, J.
We concur:
PERLUSS, P. J.
WOODS, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
[1] Although the Reed is listed in all court documents as Ryan Antonio Reed, he told the trial court at his plea hearing that his middle name was Antoni.
[2] Reeds confederate and codefendant Ali Ray McCowen is not a party to this appeal.
[3] Apparently, Reed had been in custody for 88 days on a pending case in Orange County, California.
