Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC812544.
Rushing, P.J.
In appeal number H034909 defendant Dennis Malcolm Allison appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to one felony count of failing to register as a sex offender. (Pen. Code, §§ 290.015, subd. (a)), and admitted one prison prior. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).) In appeal number H035388, defendant appeal from a subsequent order finding him in violation of probation.
In July 2008, defendant was stopped for making an illegal turn on his bicycle. Defendant gave the police false name and date of birth. After he was arrested and searched, police discovered defendant’s true identity. They then learned defendant was a sex offender who had failed to register and who had been at large since 2003. After defendant was charged, he pleaded no contest to the failure to register count and admitted the prison prior pursuant to a plea agreement that he be placed on probation with credit for time served. The trial court released the defendant on his own recognizance with a promise that he appear for sentencing, however, defendant failed to appear as promised. Over the district attorney’s objections, on August 18, 2009, the trial court sentenced defendant pursuant to the terms of the plea bargain. The court placed defendant on five years probation with credit for time served totaling 525 days and imposed a number of probation conditions, including that he register as a sex offender within three days of the date of sentencing. Defendant filed a timely notice of appealed from this sentence.
Defendant never registered as a sex offender and on October 9, 2009 was arrested and again charged with a violation of Penal Code section 290.015, subdivision (a), failure to register as a sex offender. In November 2009, while the new charge was pending, the district attorney filed a petition alleging multiple probation violations, including the failure to report to probation and register as a sex offender. The trial court severed the two alleged violations directly stemming from the new charges, pending their resolution. The court then heard evidence on the remaining alleged violations of probation. The trial court found that defendant had violated the terms of his probation, revoked probation and sentenced defendant to three years in prison, based on a two year middle term sentence for the failure to register, and a one year enhancement for the prison prior. The court awarded 674 days of credit for time served. Defendant filed another timely notice of appeal.
On appeal, appointed counsel filed a combined opening brief for both appeals which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. Within that time, we received a lengthy letter from the defendant articulating several issues he wishes to raise on appeal.
In his 16 page letter, defendant complains about a number of issues. Without any reference to the record, defendant contends that the trial court violated his speedy trial rights by allowing unreasonable continuances. However, our review of the record does not support this contention. Whatever delay in the proceedings defendant refers to, if any, was caused by his multiple requests to proceed in propria persona, which the trial court granted on multiple occasions.
Defendant further complains that the trial court improperly imposed the upper term sentence without the requisite justification on the record. This claim is not factually supported. Defendant was not sentenced to the upper term. He was sentenced to the middle term of two years, plus a one year enhancement for his prison prior.
Defendant makes a number of other claims relating to the representation he received at the trial court, the conditions of probation imposed, the time credit he received, the conditions of his imprisonment at the county facilities, and finally, he complains about being sentenced to prison under Penal Code section 290 when he already served his full term for the underlying charge. After reviewing the record on appeal pursuant to our obligation as set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and in People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we are unable to conclude that any of these contentions raise arguable issues on appeal. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: PREMO, J., ELIA, J.