Filed 1/4/18 P. v. Johnson CA5


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LARRY ANTHONY JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.


F075413

(Super. Ct. No. PREV001372)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Lloyd L. Hicks, Judge. (Retired judge of the Tulare County Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
Susan L. Jordan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Appointed counsel for defendant Larry Anthony Johnson asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond. On review, we find no arguable issues.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On about March 28, 2005, defendant pled guilty to first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). The trial court sentenced him to nine years in prison.
On June 29, 2013, defendant was released on parole.
On February 10, 2017, defendant’s parole agent filed a petition to revoke his parole. The report alleged defendant had failed to participate in and complete the substance abuse program, had ingested methamphetamine, and was in possession of a knife with a blade longer than two inches. The officer recommended defendant be returned to custody for 135 days.
On February 15, 2017, a hearing was held on defendant’s parole violation charges. At the start of the hearing, the following occurred:
“THE COURT: And it’s my understanding that you are agreeable to admitting your parole violation—
“THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor—
“THE COURT: —and the sanction would be 135 days, and you would pay $100.00 attorney’s fee. Is that your agreement?
“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, that is. I did speak with [defendant] and I informed him about what we talked about in chambers about asking for his release because of his mom.”
The court declined to release defendant to visit his mother based on his history of failing to appear. The court proceeded to take defendant’s admission to violating the terms of his parole. The court sentenced him to 135 days in custody with credits. Then the court stated: “It’s going to be $100.00 attorney’s fee payable at the rate of $50.00 or more per month beginning within 30 days of your release.”
On February 28, 2017, the trial court heard defendant’s renewed motion for a temporary release from custody to see his mother in the hospital. The court denied the motion without prejudice, informing defendant that he needed some kind of medical evidence to support his request.
Having reviewed the entire record, we find no arguable issues on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.