P. v.
Filed 7/18/13 P. v. England CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
RODNEY ENGLAND,
Defendant and
Appellant.
D062869
(Super. Ct. No. SCN302455)
APPEAL from a judgment
of the Superior Court of
County, Kimberlee
A. Lagotta, Judge. Affirmed.
Beatrice C. Tillman for
Defendant and Appellant.
No Appearance for the
Plaintiff and Respondent.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On March 5, 2012, Rodney England pleaded guilty to
(Health and Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)), and the court granted him probation
under Penal Code section 1210.
At an August 2012 hearing, the court declined England's request to remain in drug treatment after
summarizing his failures to complete drug treatment. The court stated: "Seventy two hours [after England pleaded guilty to the drug violation] he
failed to appear at probation. First
court appearance, [April 4, 2012]. He
failed to appear in court. Warrant goes
out. He is here on [May 2, 2012]. He
admits first [drug rehabilitation violation] for those two violations. [I] order him to probation again. By [an unclear date in 2012] he fails to
appear. Next court appearance [June 20,
2012]. He fails to appear. [¶] At
this point in time I don't believe him to be amenable for treatment. He has made absolutely no efforts; not even
showing up when he is suppose[d] to."
The court ruled, "I am terminating him from treatment at this
time. I don't believe he would qualify
for drug court because of his gang status."
The court sentenced England to two years in
We affirm.
Appointed counsel has filed a brief
summarizing the facts and proceedings below.
Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks that this court
review the record for error as mandated by People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to a
possible but not arguable issue of whether the trial court abused its
discretion by denying England reinstatement of probation under Penal Code
section 1210.1, and sentencing him to state prison.
We granted England permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. Our review of the entire record pursuant to
v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d
436 and Anders v. California,
possible issue referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably
arguable appellate issues. Competent
counsel has represented England on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
BENKE, J.
