P. v. Garcia
Filed 10/23/08 P. v. Garcia CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RUBEN GARCIA, Defendant and Appellant. | A120980 (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR217683) |
Defendant Ruben Garcia pleaded no contest to one count of possession of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a).) After numerous probation violations, the trial court sentenced him to the middle term of two years in state prison.
Appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. We find no arguable issues and affirm.
I.
The chronology of this case is as follows.
August 30, 2004. Defendant entered his plea to the methamphetamine charge. Pursuant to a negotiated agreement, he was placed on three years probation. The chief probation condition was that defendant enter and successfully complete a Proposition 36 program.
September 17, 2004. Defendant admitted violating his probation by failing to attend the Proposition 36 program orientation on September 13. The court found that defendant had violated his probation. The court ordered probation continued on the same terms and conditions, and in addition ordered defendant to attend five AA/NA meetings per week.
October 8, 2004. The trial court modified probation to require defendant to attend 30 AA/NA meetings in 30 days.
November 8, 2004. The probation department notified the court that defendant had failed to attend his Proposition 36 orientation, failed to contact his probation officer, tested positive for drugs on October 8, and apparently failed to appear for subsequent drug testing.
January 4, 2005. Defendant admitted violating his probation by failing to attend his Proposition 36 orientation, missing appointments with his probation officer, missing required drug tests, and failing to show proof of attendance at AA/NA meetings. The trial court found defendant in violation of probation and continued probation on the same terms and conditions.
January 21, 2005. Defendant admitted violating his probation by failing to drug test and to provide proof he attended AA/NA meetings. The trial court found defendant in violation of probation and continued probation, again ordering defendant to attend 30 AA/NA meetings in 30 days.
February 4, 2005. The trial court revoked probation because of a new traffic case and defendants failure to appear in Proposition 36 court.
March 22, 2005. Defendant admitted he had violated his probation by failing to appear in Proposition 36 court, failing to show proof he had attended AA/NA meetings, and failing to stop when a police officer initiated a traffic stop. The trial court found that defendant had violated his probation.
April 19, 2005. The trial court reinstated probation on the same terms and conditions, with the deletion of the Proposition 36 program.
October 3, 2005. The People moved to revoke probation. Defendant had been arrested for a Vehicle Code violation and a methamphetamine pipe was found in his possession.
October 4, 2005. The trial court revoked probation based on the police report.
October 12, 2005. Defendant admitted that he had violated his probation by failing to obey all laws.
November 1, 2005. The trial court reinstated probation and modified the probation terms to require defendant to serve 120 days in county jail and then complete a residential drug treatment program. The court advised defendant that the probation department recommended zero tolerance of further violations: What they are saying is that this is your last chance. You are going to be afforded a [residential treatment] program to help you rehabilitate yourself. If you dont take advantage of it, then next time you come to court, youll probably go to prison. Defendant told the court he understood.
May 18, 2006. The probation department filed a request for revocation of probation and the issuance of a bench warrant. Defendant had entered the Salvation Army residential treatment program on December 20, 2005, but did not complete the program. He was terminated from the program on May 1, 2006, for failing to participate, being argumentative, and having a negative attitude. Since his termination defendant had failed to contact the probation department and had failed to report his current residence address. His whereabouts were unknown.
The trial court revoked probation and issued a bench warrant.
January 20, 2008. Defendant was arrested in Davis on the outstanding bench warrant, having been at large for over 20 months.
January 29, 2008. Defendant admitted he violated his probation by failing to complete the residential drug treatment program and failing to maintain contact with his probation officer.
March 6, 2008. The probation department recommended a state prison sentence because defendant had failed to utilize multiple opportunities to comply with the terms of his probation and to deal with his substance abuse problem.
The trial court found that defendant had made zero effort to comply with probation, and denied any further grant of probation [b]ased on your atrocious history and your poor performance on probation and your bad attitude. The court sentenced defendant to the middle term of two years for the 2004 conviction of possession of methamphetamine.
II.
We have reviewed the record and find no arguable issues. Defendant was given numerous opportunities to deal with his substance abuse problem, but instead made zero effort. He violated his probation no less than six times, the last after he had been warned his was a zero tolerance case. His probation admissions were made with the assistance of counsel and after knowing waivers of rights.
There was no error in the proceedings or the sentence imposed.
III.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
______________________
Marchiano, P.J.
We concur:
______________________
Swager, J.
______________________
Margulies, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
