Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment and order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. YA061531, Gary E. Daigh, Judge.
Alan Stern, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
PERLUSS, P. J.
Willis Burton was sentenced to state prison on October 31, 2007 following the revocation of probation imposed after an earlier conviction for carrying a concealable firearm in violation of Penal Code section 12025, subdivision (a)(2). Burton had pleaded no contest to the firearm charge on May 9, 2005 pursuant to a negotiated agreement. As agreed, a second firearm charge was dismissed; imposition of sentence was suspended; and Burton was placed on three years formal probation on condition he serve 120 days in county jail, with credit for time served. As one of the conditions of probation, Burton was ordered to obey all laws. The court also ordered Burton to pay a $20 security assessment and a $200 restitution fine.
When Burton failed to report to the probation department as ordered, the trial court summarily revoked his probation and issued a bench warrant for his arrest on August 26, 2005. On January 26, 2007 the court recalled the bench warrant after Burton appeared in court. The court remanded Burton to custody and ordered a supplemental probation report pending a hearing.
At the hearing on February 9, 2007 Burton admitted he had violated probation. The trial court found him in violation and ordered him to serve an additional 120 days in custody. On May 25, 2007 the court reinstated Burton’s probation on condition he serve 180 days in custody, which were deemed served.
Burton was arrested once again on June 3, 2007 and charged with making a criminal threat, a felony (Los Angeles Superior Court case No. TA091042). On June 11, 2007 Burton’s probation was revoked as a result of this new case, and he was remanded to custody. His probation violation hearing was set to trail his jury trial in the felony case.
At trial on September 18, 2007 Dr. Hossein Samadi testified Burton was detained in a hospital room at Harbor UCLA Hospital for a psychiatric evaluation pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150. At some point during the evaluation Burton became angry and advanced on Samadi with clenched fists and kicked the wall as Samadi retreated to the door. Burton then threatened to kill Samadi, who fled from the room in fear and called for assistance. Burton followed Samadi outside into the hall. He was then restrained until the police arrived.
After a day of deliberation, the jury deadlocked; and the trial court declared a mistrial. The prosecutor elected to proceed with the probation violation hearing. The same day the court denied Burton’s request to testify on his own behalf and found him in violation of probation based on Dr. Samadi’s trial testimony.
On October 31, 2007 the trial court reversed its earlier ruling and allowed Burton to testify as to the alleged probation violation. During his testimony, Burton denied he had threatened to kill Dr. Samadi. Following argument by counsel, the court found Burton had violated his probation by making a criminal threat against Samadi. In sentencing Burton, the court declined to reinstate probation and imposed the middle term of two years in state prison for carrying a concealable firearm. Burton received presentence custody credit of 526 days (151 actual days, 75 days of conduct credit and 300 days previous credit). A parole revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45. On the prosecutor’s motion the court dismissed the felony case, No. TA091042.
We appointed counsel to represent Burton on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised. On June 5, 2008 we advised Burton he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have received no response to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Burton’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment and order are affirmed.
We concur: WOODS, J., JACKSON, J.