Filed 4/17/18 P. v. McNeal CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
LINTON McNEAL,
Defendant and Appellant.

A151905

(Solano County
Super. Ct. No. FCR305942)


Defendant Linton McNeal appeals an order remanding him into custody to begin serving a 180-day county jail term previously imposed as a condition of probation. His attorney has submitted a brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and has advised defendant of his right to submit a supplemental brief, which he has not done. Based on our independent review of the record on appeal, we conclude that there is no arguable issue warranting further briefing.
Background
On April 8, 2016, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant pled no contest to one count of felony forgery of a “home affordable modification agreement” (Pen. Code, § 470, subd. (d)). Defendant’s plea was based on the following facts: In November 2005, defendant and the victim purchased a home as joint tenants for $375,000. They lived in the home together with their two children until the summer of 2011 when the victim moved out. In 2014, defendant forged the victim’s signature on loan modification documents. The terms of the 2014 loan modification prohibited defendant from refinancing the loan before August 2017. Throughout the proceedings, defendant refused to sell the property, insisting that he would refinance the loan in 2017 to remove the victim’s name from the loan.
The parties agreed that the matter would be continued for six months before judgment was entered and that if defendant successfully removed the victim’s name from the forged loan, he would be permitted to withdraw his plea and the charges would be dismissed. When defendant failed to remove the victim’s name from the loan in the time permitted, the court set a hearing for entry of judgment and imposition of sentence.
On March 3, 2017, the date set for judgment and sentence, defendant made a motion pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 1118. The motion was heard in closed court and denied.
Consistent with the terms of defendant’s plea agreement, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on five years of formal probation, with the condition that he serve 180 days in county jail. The jail term was stayed pending a restitution hearing.
At the restitution hearing, the victim requested that the home be sold so that her name could be removed from the loan. Defendant continued to refuse to sell the home and on June 9, 2017, the court found that it lacked jurisdiction to order the home sold, but reserved the right to order restitution in the future.
On the same date, defendant requested a continued stay of the previously imposed probation condition requiring him to serve 180 days in county jail. He argued that he was successfully complying with the other terms of his probation and that he had “a number of surgeries and operations” scheduled, including hand surgery on June 23. The court rejected his request and remanded defendant into custody. The court explained that defendant “worked a substantial hardship” on the victim and he had “stumbled into this situation where the court really has no ability to order what . . . would be appropriate restitution.” Finding that he had “essentially gotten away with . . . fraud,” he was “deserving of a substantial penalty for the injury that he . . . caused the victim.”
On June 19, 2017, defendant filed a motion to modify probation seeking to be released from county jail to attend medical appointments on June 23 and June 28. On June 26, the court denied defendant’s motion.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal of the June 9 order.
Discussion
We have reviewed the sealed transcript of the Marsden hearing and find no error in the denial of defendant’s motion.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to stay the county jail probation condition. Defendant was clearly advised that he would serve 180 days in county jail as a condition of probation. The condition was stayed pending only the restitution hearing. Defendant made no showing that delaying his medical appointments threatened to aggravate an existing medical condition. Defendant was not entitled to a further stay.
Defendant was adequately represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.
Disposition
The June 9 order is affirmed.


Pollak, J.


We concur:

McGuiness, P.J.*
Jenkins, J.