P. v. Brooks
Filed 3/3/06 P. v. Brooks CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NICHOLAS TROY BROOKS, Defendant and Appellant. | A111696 (Lake County Super. Ct. No. CR903665) |
Defendant appeals from a judgment following his plea of guilty. His counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) We have reviewed the record on appeal and find no meritorious issues to be argued.
Defendant was charged in a complaint filed January 19, 2005, with violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378 (possession of methamphetamine for sale). The complaint also alleged pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) that he had suffered a prior conviction on December 16, 1991, for violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.3.
On March 10, 2005, defendant entered a plea of guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code §11377, subd. (a)) and admitted the allegation pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). A probation report was ordered and sentencing was set for April 8, 2005.
In a letter to the court, the probation officer indicated that he did not believe defendant was eligible for probation under Penal Code section 1210.1 since he was currently on parole for a serious felony as defined in Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(1)(8). The letter further advised the court that defendant was of the opinion that he was to be admitted to probation pursuant to Penal Code section 1210.1. On April 8, 2005, defense counsel was permitted to withdraw, a new attorney was appointed, defendant made a motion to withdraw his plea and the matter was continued to April 29.
On April 29, the matter was continued again to May 20, 2005, for â€
