Filed 9/27/17 P. v. Chenoweth 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
THOMAS EDWARD CHENOWETH,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
E068323
(Super.Ct.No. 16CR002734)
OPINION
|
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Rodney A. Cortez, Judge. Affirmed.
David W. Beaudreau, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 15, 2016, a complaint charged defendant and appellant Thomas Edward Chenoweth with possessing metal knuckles under Penal Code section 21810. Defendant pled no contest and admitted that he previously suffered a prison-prior conviction under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).[1] The trial court sentenced him to a four-year split sentence under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(B), with three months in local custody, and three years nine months on mandatory supervision.
On August 5, 2016, defendant admitted violating his mandatory supervision conditions. The trial court revoked and reinstated mandatory supervision. The court re-imposed the four-year split sentence, with one year in custody and the remainder on mandatory supervision.
On May 10, 2017, following a contested revocation hearing, the trial court found that defendant again violated his mandatory supervision terms. The court terminated mandatory supervision, sentenced defendant to a straight four-year jail term, and imposed the fines and fees that were previously imposed.
On May 16, 2017, defendant filed his notice of appeal.
B. FACTUAL HISTORY
Defendant appeals from the contested May 10, 2017, mandatory supervision revocation hearing. At the hearing Probation Officer Timothy Buckland testified, based on his review of the probation file, that following defendant’s August 25, 2016, release from custody defendant failed to report within 48 hours. He did not report until September 2, 2016. At probation department orientation, defendant indicated that he would not comply with conditions barring him from drinking alcohol stating “I’ll drink a beer when I want to drink a beer.” Also, that he did not intend to carry his physical terms and conditions with him at all times. Finally, defendant indicated he was not going to register as a narcotics offender.
Defendant was required to report back to probation on November 9, he did not do so. He was then directed to report on November 10, 2016; again, defendant failed to report as directed.
Probation officers made contact with defendant on December 12, 2016, while he was walking down a highway. Defendant was searched, and officers found a pipe and a container with methamphetamine residue. Defendant admitted that he smoked methamphetamine about three days earlier. He was directed to appear on December 13 for an office visit. On December 13, 2016, defendant failed to report.
On January 4, 2017, defendant called the probation office and spoke with an officer, but the officer was unable to understand him. Officers then conducted a home visit; defendant’s listed residence was vacant.
Defendant testified and responded to Officer Buckland’s allegations. Defendant was unable to report following his August 25, 2016, release from custody because he lacked transportation from West Valley Jail. It took him more than two days to “hitchhike” to Yucca Valley in steel-toed boots; when he arrived he immediately went to the hospital, where they cut off his boots, removed seven toenails and put him on six weeks bedrest.
Defendant then admitted challenging the no-alcohol and narcotic-offender-registration conditions. He did not report on November 9 and 10, 2016, because he didn’t know who to report to; he had been told he had a new probation officer.
Defendant admitted that on December 12, 2016, he possessed a “methamphetamine pipe” and a matchbox containing methamphetamine residue. He also admitted using methamphetamine. Defendant explained that he left a message for his probation officer on January 4, 2017, in which he provided the address for his new residence. When probation officers checked on the residence later that day, it appeared vacant because he had not moved in yet. Defendant admitted failing to report on December 13, 2016, but explained that he was being held by officers conducting a search of another resident of the home where he lived.
The trial court found that defendant violated his mandatory supervision conditions by failing to report as directed, possessing a methamphetamine pipe, and filing to provide his address to his probation officer.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, 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 case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. 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 error.
DISPOSITION
The trial court properly denied defendant’s petition for resentencing. The trial court’s order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
Acting P. J.
We concur:
CODRINGTON
J.
SLOUGH
J.
[1] Defendant’s plea agreement indicates he agreed to change his plea to “guilty/no contest” based on “plea bargaining,” not because he was guilty. At the change-of-plea hearing, defendant personally entered a “no contest” plea. But the trial court treated defendant’s plea as a guilty plea, finding that his “plea of guilty” was free and voluntary, and ordered that his “plea of guilty” be “accepted and entered into the minutes.” Defendant did not object at the hearing, and failed to file a notice of appeal from the March 5, 2016, proceeding.
