Filed 7/17/17 P. v. Webber CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BOBBY LEVELL WEBBER,

Defendant and Appellant.
B278752

(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. MA052895)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charles A. Chung, Judge.
Brian C. McComas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.

________________________________________

On August 9, 2011, appellant Bobby Levell Webber pled no contest to one count of resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69) and one count of corporal injury to a spouse/cohabitant/child’s parent (§ 273.5, subd. (a)). He also admitted suffering a “strike” within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). With the consent of the prosecutor and in the interest of justice, the trial court imposed but suspended a nine- year, four-month prison sentence. Appellant was placed on formal probation for five years.
On November 27, 2012, appellant admitted violating the terms of his probation. The minute order memorialized that the trial court allowed appellant “one final opportunity on probation after he serves 365 in county jail.” Appellant agreed to waive all back time credits. On April 15, 2015, the court found that appellant had violated the terms of his probation again. It sentenced him to an additional 365 days in county jail, with 100 days of custody credits.
On October 26, 2016, after a probation revocation hearing, the court found appellant in violation of probation. The trial court terminated probation and imposed a sentence of nine years, four months in state prison. Appellant was awarded 485 days of custody credit.
Appellant timely appealed. After examining the record, appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues, but asking this court to independently review the record on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 264.) On March 30, 2017, we advised appellant he had 30 days to file a supplemental letter brief raising any issue he wished this court to consider. No response was received.
We conclude the trial court properly terminated appellant’s probation and imposed the previously suspended sentence. This court has examined the entire record in accordance with People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pages 441-442, and is satisfied appellant’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel, and no arguable issues exist. Accordingly, we affirm.

DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.


MANELLA, J.

We concur:


WILLHITE, Acting P. J. COLLINS, J.