People v. Melo

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL MELO, Defendant and…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

Date published: May 28, 2010

No. H034583 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 28, 2010)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL MELO, Defendant and Appellant. H034583 California Court of Appeal, Sixth District May 28, 2010

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Santa Clara County Super. Ct. Nos. CC105587, CC598610.

Premo, J.

Defendant Daniel Melo appeals from judgment in two superior court cases, Nos. CC105587 and CC598610.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief 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. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant.

I. Background

In case No. CC105587, defendant was convicted of residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a)) and resisting arrest (id. § 148, subd. (a)(1)) committed on April 2, 2001. He was granted three years formal probation. In case No. CC598610, defendant was convicted of possessing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and being under the influence of methamphetamine (id. § 11550, subd. (a)).

On November 21, 2008, after several probation violations over the years since his convictions, a final violation was alleged and bench warrants issued in both cases. Defendant was taken into custody on December 5, 2008, waived his right to a formal arraignment, preparation of a probation report, and a formal hearing on the latest probation violation, and admitted the probation violation alleged. The trial court sentenced defendant to prison in both cases and ordered him to pay a restitution fine of $200 in each case. After some discussion between court and counsel pertaining to custody and conduct credits (which amounted to well over 1000 days in each case) defendant personally told the court, “I would like to proceed.” The prosecutor stipulated “to whatever the Court sees fit” and defendant’s counsel stated, “Yes, we would like to proceed with whatever calculations the Court is willing to give.”

Defendant’s sentences were deemed served and he was ordered to report to the local parole office.

II. Discussion

We have reviewed the whole record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.

III. Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: Rushing, P.J., Elia, J.