P. v. Munoz

Filed 2/20/07  P. v. Munoz CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

          APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Harvey Giss, Judge.  Affirmed.

          Jonathan B. Steiner and Richard L. Fitzer, under appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

          No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

          Ruben Munoz appeals from the judgment entered following revocation of probation.  He previously pled guilty to one count of first degree residential burglary[1] (Pen. Code, §  459); imposition of sentence was suspended, and he was placed on formal probation for three years.  The terms of probation included that he serve 270 days in county jail, obey all laws and orders of the court, and report to his probation officer as directed.  

On September 28, 2000, appellant failed to appear in court for a probation revocation hearing.  The court made a preliminary finding that he was in violation of probation upon being advised that he had failed to report to the probation department.  Probation was revoked and a bench warrant was issued. 

On December 14, 2000, appellant appeared in court on the outstanding bench warrant; and the warrant was recalled.  Probation remained revoked, and appellant was released on his own recognizance and ordered to report to the probation department by the next day. 

On January 29, 2001, appellant admitted a violation of probation.  Probation was reinstated and continued on the same terms and conditions with the addition that he report to the probation department on or before the next day.  

On April 30, 2002, appellant failed to appear in court without sufficient excuse.  Probation was revoked, and a bench warrant was issued. 

On May 15, 2006, appellant appeared in court for a bench warrant hearing.  The bench warrant was recalled and quashed, probation remained revoked and appellant was remanded and ordered to appear in court on the next court date. 

On August 7, 2006, following a formal hearing[2], appellant was found in violation of probation.  Probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to prison for the middle term of four years.  Due to the sentence in this case, the prosecution dismissed a new charge. 

After review of the record, appellant's court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.

          On November 17, 2006, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider.  No response has been received to date. 

          We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel's compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case.  (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)

DISPOSITION

          The judgment is affirmed.

          NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                          WILLHITE, Acting P.J.

We concur:

          MANELLA, J.

          SUZUKAWA, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.

[1]           The evidence at the preliminary hearing established that on January 30, 2000, appellant entered the home of his ex-wife while she was out and took her television.  Following waiver of his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436), appellant stated to the police he had pushed open the kitchen window and entered the residence to steal a television because he needed money to fix his car, and he was sorry. 

[2]           The evidence at the hearing established that appellant had been placed on probation in 2000 and had failed to report to the probation department the last four years.  Initially he reported; but during the period April 30, 2002 through May 15, 2006, he never reported.  Appellant testified that for 12 or 18 months he had reported every month using mail-in letters.  When he ran out of the mailers, he did not contact the probation department.  He admitted that for some time, he continued to use cocaine during his period of probation.