Opinion
A155136
03-05-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CODY LEE LADD, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCUK-CRCR-17-92711)
This is an appeal from an order revoking defendant Cody Lee Ladd's probation after he admitted violating probationary conditions that he report to probation upon release from custody and notify the probation department of his residence and mailing address.
After defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, appellate counsel was appointed. Appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), in which she raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record. Counsel attests she advised defendant she would be filing a Wende brief and that defendant had the right to file a supplemental brief. Defendant has not exercised his right to file a supplemental brief.
We examined the entire record in accordance with Wende. We conclude there are no appellate issues requiring further review, and we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 26, 2017, the People filed a complaint alleging defendant committed felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)) on December 22, 2017. Defendant pleaded no contest to the complaint, and the trial court suspended imposition of the sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years subject to various terms and conditions, including serving 180 days in jail with credit for 44 days. The trial court also ordered payment of a restitution fine of $300 (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), a probation revocation fine of $300 (imposed and stayed) (Pen. Code, § 1202.44), a $71 fine under Penal Code section 1202.5, a $40 security fee and a $30 criminal conviction fee. The trial court struck the $652 presentence investigation fee because defendant, who was homeless and not working, had "extraordinary financial constraints" and no ability to pay the presentence investigation fee.
In March 2018, defendant's probation officer filed a first violation of probation petition alleging defendant had been arrested for being under the influence of alcohol. Defendant admitted the violation, and the court revoked and reinstated defendant's probation and sentenced him to 30 days in county jail.
In April 2018, defendant's probation officer filed a second violation of probation petition alleging defendant had: (1) failed to enroll in a substance abuse treatment program; (2) failed to obtain a mental health evaluation; (3) missed a probation appointment; and (4) was arrested for misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)). At the hearing on the violation petition, the probation officer withdrew the first allegation and defendant admitted the remaining allegations. The trial court revoked and reinstated probation and sentenced defendant to 90 days in county jail.
In July 2018, defendant's probation officer filed a third violation of probation petition alleging that after defendant was released from custody he failed to provide probation with his address and to meet with the probation officer. The probation officer recommended permanent revocation of probation and that defendant be sentenced to the aggravated term of three years in prison. Defendant admitted the allegations, and the court permanently revoked defendant's probation and sentenced him to the middle term of two years in prison with credit for 401 days. The trial court also imposed the previously stayed $300 fine under Penal Code section 1202.44 and imposed the other fines and fees.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the sentence.
On August 21, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on defendant's request to modify the fines and fees imposed based upon an inability to pay. The trial court found defendant did not have the ability to pay the fines imposed based on defendant's work history, his mental health diagnosis, and his dependency on Supplemental Security Income. The trial court suspended payment of each of the fines imposed based on the inability to pay. Payment of the $40 security fee and the $30 conviction fee was not suspended because the trial court found there was no showing that defendant is unable to do community service hours to satisfy this obligation.
See Penal Code section 1237.2 ["The trial court retains jurisdiction after a notice of appeal has been filed to correct any error in the imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs upon the defendant's request for correction"]. --------
DISCUSSION
Neither appointed counsel nor defendant has identified any issue for our review. Upon our own independent review of the record, we agree none exits. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) The trial court revoked defendant's probation after he, represented by counsel, freely and voluntarily admitted violating the express probationary conditions that he notify the probation department of his whereabouts and meet with his probation officer. The trial court then sentenced defendant to the middle term (two years) for a crime to which he pleaded nolo contendere (felony vandalism) and awarded him credit for actual time served and good conduct. Upon defendant's request following the decision in People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, the court held a hearing to determine defendant's ability to pay the fines imposed and found he is unable to pay the fines, but could pay the $70 total fees imposed through community service. The trial court suspended payment of each of the fines previously imposed.
The trial court's decisions were proper. (See People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 932 ["During the period of probation, the court may revoke, modify, or change its order suspending imposition or execution of the sentence, as warranted by the defendant's conduct. (§§ 1203.2, 1203.3.)"]; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.435(a) ["When the defendant violates the terms of probation . . . or is otherwise subject to revocation of supervision, the sentencing judge may make any disposition of the case authorized by statute"].) We find no reasonably arguable appellate issue, and we are satisfied that counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 440-441.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
/s/_________
Jackson, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Siggins, P. J. /s/_________
Fujisaki, J.