Filed 7/27/17 P. v. Seeden CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

STEVEN SEEDEN,

Defendant and Appellant.


E068182

(Super.Ct.No. 16CR009112)

O P I N I O N


APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Gregory S. Tavill, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant, Steven Seeden, pled no contest to two counts of assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4); counts 5-6.) Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court placed defendant on three years’ probation with a suspended sentence of four years’ incarceration. On March 1, 2017, a petition to revoke defendant’s probation was filed. After a contested hearing, the court found defendant in violation of the terms of his probation, revoked his probation, and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment.
After defense counsel filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the facts, a statement of the case, and identifying two potentially arguable issues: (1) whether insufficient evidence supported the court’s finding that defendant had violated the terms of his probation; and (2) whether the court abused its discretion in revoking defendant’s probation. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 11, 2016, the People charged defendant by felony complaint with two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (counts 1-2; § 245, subd. (a)(1)), felony vandalism (count 3; § 594, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor battery (count 4; § 242). On April 20, 2016, defense counsel declared a doubt regarding defendant’s competency to stand trial. The court suspended proceedings and referred the matter out for a competency evaluation.
A psychologist evaluated defendant and reported that although defendant suffered from mental health issues, he was competent to stand trial. On June 3, 2016, the parties submitted on the recommendation of the evaluating psychologist. The court found defendant competent to stand trial and reinstated the criminal proceedings.
On June 21, 2016, the People filed an information identical to the complaint after the preliminary hearing on June 15, 2016. On August 30, 2016, defendant pled guilty to the interlineated counts 5 and 6 as recounted above. In return, the remaining counts were dismissed and defendant received probation on a suspended sentence of four years. On September 27, 2016, the court granted defendant three years’ probation on a suspended term of incarceration of four years.
On January 17, 2017, defendant reported to the probation officer, but was incoherent; defendant admitted to using “Spice” earlier in the morning; the probation officer located some Spice in defendant’s pocket. Due to defendant’s impairment, the officer was unable to conduct an interview with defendant. Defendant was ordered to report back the next day.
The next day defendant reported as directed, but was slow moving and disoriented. Defendant admitted to using THC and Spice the previous day. He further admitted using Spice three times weekly.
Defendant failed to report to probation on February 13 and 17, 2017 for a mental health assessment. On February 28, 2017, an officer responded to defendant’s residence to conduct a routine inspection. The officer was informed defendant had been moved out one week earlier due to his poor behavior in the home and neighborhood. The officer followed up on an address which the house manager reported as defendant’s new address. At that address, the officer found defendant bleeding from his hands and leg; additionally, defendant appeared disheveled, lethargic, and confused. Defendant stated he had used Spice that morning. The officer directed defendant to report to probation on March 1, 2017.
Defendant reported to probation on March 1, 2017. He was given a drug test which reflected positive for THC. Defendant also admitted to using Spice, THC, and methamphetamine; he signed a letter of admission confirming his use of all three substances. On March 1, 2017, a petition to revoke defendant’s probation was filed. The petition alleged defendant had failed to comply with the following terms of his probation: (1) cooperate with the probation officer and follow all reasonable directives of the probation officer; (2) keep the probation officer informed of place of residence and cohabitants; (3) give written notice to the probation officer 24 hours prior to any changes; (4) neither use nor possess any controlled substance unless prescribed; (5) participate in rehabilitative programs as directed by the probation officers.
The court held a contested revocation hearing on April 21, 2017. Defendant testified he did not sign the letter of admission. The court found defendant in violation of the terms of his probation and revoked his probation. The court sentenced defendant to four years’ imprisonment.
II. DISCUSSION
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


McKINSTER
J.


We concur:

RAMIREZ
P. J.

SLOUGH
J.