From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Flowers

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
May 21, 2008
No. H032283 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 21, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MAURICE FLOWERS, Defendant and Appellant. H032283 California Court of Appeal, Sixth District May 21, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Monterey County Super. Ct. No. SS051928.

McAdams, J.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

On February 27, 2007, defendant Maurice Flowers entered into a plea disposition under which he pleaded guilty to a felony charge of selling or transporting cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code § 11352, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior drug sales conviction within the meaning of section 11370.2, subdivision (a). In return, under the terms of the plea bargain, he was sentenced to a term of state prison for six years (the lower term of three years for the drug offense plus three years for the enhancement) with execution of the sentence suspended for five years. Defendant was placed on probation for five years with various conditions including 506 days in jail (with 506 days credit and excess credits over 365 days waived), a promise to obey all laws and “not to use or possess alcohol, narcotics, drugs or other controlled substances.”

All further references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise indicated.

PROBATION VIOLATIONS

On April 27, 2007, defendant was charged with a violation of probation for failure to obey all laws after pleading no contest to misdemeanor resisting arrest (Pen. Code § 148, subd. (a)(1)).

A second petition to revoke probation was filed alleging various crimes but was eventually limited to two misdemeanors: Vehicle Code section 12500 (driving without a valid license) and Penal Code section 148.9 (false information to a police officer).

A probation violation hearing was held on August 29, 2007. The court found defendant in violation of probation.

On September 11, 2007, the court imposed the previously suspended six-year term in state prison.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Original Offense

As indicated in the probation report, on April 9, 2005, Monterey County law enforcement officers stopped a car with no license plates. The officers detected an order of alcohol and the driver, Petunia Brown Williams, had no personal or vehicle identification. Defendant was a passenger. An eventual search of the car revealed an open container of alcohol and several small baggies of narcotics and smoking paraphernalia. Also, an identification card was found for “Joseph Deluchi” in the driver’s purse. Defendant was found to have over $1,000 in cash. The tow truck operator who arrived was named Joseph Deluchi; he admitted to the officers that the driver had possession of his license because he had made 15 to 20 purchases of cocaine from defendant and the driver over approximately one month.

Defendant had a prior conviction for section 11351.5 (possession of cocaine base for sale) in 2000 in Monterey County.

The Probation Violations

1. The First Violation

On April 20, 2007, defendant entered a plea of no contest to Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a)(1) in Monterey County case number MS254665A. The court took judicial notice of this proceeding.

2. The Second Violation

At the formal probation revocation hearing, California Highway Patrol Officer Mario Mendez testified that he stopped defendant’s vehicle because the passenger was not wearing a seat belt. Defendant gave him a false name and date of birth. Defendant had no valid driver’s license.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues.

We have notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. The period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant.

Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record, and we have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P.J., Duffy, J.


Summaries of

People v. Flowers

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
May 21, 2008
No. H032283 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 21, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Flowers

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MAURICE FLOWERS, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

Date published: May 21, 2008

Citations

No. H032283 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 21, 2008)