P. v. Valencia

Filed 3/14/07 P. v. Valencia CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE COURT:*

Jorge Valencia, also known as George Valencia, appeals from the judgment entered following revocation of probation previously granted after his plea of no contest to assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)). Appellant was placed on three years probation and ordered to perform 120 days of Caltrans or tree farm service. On June 21, 2005, appellants probation was revoked based upon the filing of a new criminal charge of forgery (Pen. Code, 470, subd. (d)). At a probation violation hearing on November 18, 2005, the trial court found appellant in violation of probation. He was later sentenced to the upper term of four years as previously imposed at an earlier probation violation hearing, after which probation was reinstated. We appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal.

The probation violation was based on the following facts.

At approximately 9:00 a.m., on June 17, 2005, appellant presented a check (on which the payee name and amount) for payment at Mission Valley Bank appeared to have been altered. The maker of the check, Martin Julian, denied making any check payable to appellant. On June 16, 2005, he made out a check to DMV in the amount of $2,500 and wrote the name Sergio Dela Vega on the memo line.

After examination of the record, counsel filed an Opening Brief in which no issues were raised.

On August 14, 2006, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. On October 23, 2006, he filed a supplemental brief claiming that he was not charged with a crime and therefore the witness should not have been allowed to testify in his probation violation hearing. But probation can be violated without being charged or convicted of a crime. (Pen. Code, 1203.3; see In re Williams (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 53 [deceiving probation officer by denying arrest record justified revocation of probation].)

We have also examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.

Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.

* DOI TODD, Acting P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.