P. v. Hitzelberger
Filed 8/15/06 P. v. Hitzelberger CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Shasta)
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRIAN DAVID HITZELBERGER, Defendant and Appellant. | C051714
(Super. Ct. No. 01F4106)
|
In August 2001, defendant Brian David Hitzelberger pleaded guilty to two counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under age 14. He was sentenced to state prison for 10 years. Execution of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for seven years on conditions, including service of 270 days of incarceration with one day of presentence credit.
In December 2004, a petition was filed alleging that defendant violated his probation by using methamphetamine. He admitted the allegation. Probation was reinstated on terms including an additional 90 days of incarceration with credit for 65 days.
In July 2005, a petition was filed alleging that defendant violated his probation by failing to enroll in an alcohol and drug program, testing positive for methamphetamine, and being terminated from a sex offender treatment program. Defendant admitted the allegations. Execution of the state prison sentence was ordered.
Defendant was awarded 324 days of custody credit and 48 days of conduct credit, ordered to make restitution to the victim, and directed to pay a $2,000 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4), a $2000 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), and a $200 sex crime fine (Pen. Code, § 290.3).
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.
BLEASE , Acting P. J.
We concur:
SIMS , J.
BUTZ , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
