Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County Nos. FMB008185, FMB008638 & FMB700016. Bryan Foster, Bert L. Swift, and William Jefferson Powell, IV, Judges.
Randall B. Bookout, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ P.J.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Superior Court Case No. FMB008185
On May 15, 2006, an amended complaint was filed charging defendant, Jeffrey Paulino, with an additional count of felony possession of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).) Pursuant to Penal Code section 859a, defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to count 2 of the amended charge of felony possession of a controlled substance in exchange for a dismissal of the original charge. Both parties stipulated to a factual basis for the plea.
On October 23, 2006, defendant was granted probation for 36 months pursuant to Penal Code section 1210.1. Defendant was subsequently ordered to report to a probation officer and follow the terms set forth under Proposition 36.
On November 27, 2006, a Petition for Revocation of Probation was filed, which alleged that defendant violated term No. 3 and term No. 9 of his probation agreement. Defendant admitted those allegations on November 27, 2006. Defendant was thereafter reinstated on probation on November 27, 2006.
Probation term No. 3 read, “Cooperate with the probation officer in a plan of rehabilitation and follow all reasonable directives of the probation officer.” Probation term No. 9 read, “Neither use nor possess any controlled substance without medical prescription. . . .”
On December 14, 2006, during an early disposition hearing on a new case, case No. FMB008638, defendant admitted he violated his probation in case No. FMB008185, although a formal Petition for Revocation was not filed until December 18, 2006. On January 22, 2007, during a hearing on the Petition for Revocation of Probation, defendant once again admitted to violating his probation. On January 22, 2007, defendant was reinstated on probation.
On January 30, 2007, a third Petition for Revocation of Probation was filed, which alleged, once again, that defendant violated terms and conditions of his probation agreement. On March 22, 2007, defendant admitted those allegations and had his probation revoked and terminated. Consequently, defendant was sentenced to a middle term of two years in state prison for violating Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a), and defendant was awarded the appropriate custody credits. On April 9, 2007, defendant filed a notice of appeal challenging the validity of his guilty plea. Defendant cited “factual innocence” as the basis for his appeal, and on April 10, 2007, a certificate of probable cause was granted.
Superior Court Case No. FMB008638
On December 12, 2006, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County charging defendant with one count of felony possession of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).)
On December 14, 2006, defendant, once again represented by counsel, pled nolo contendere pursuant to Penal Code section 859a. The prosecution orally stipulated to a factual basis for the plea, and the court stated “a factual basis exists for the plea.”
Thereafter, on January 8, 2007, defendant failed to appear for sentencing, and a bench warrant was issued for defendant’s arrest. On January 16, 2007, defendant was arraigned on the bench warrant, and sentencing was again postponed.
On March 22, 2007, defendant declined drug treatment under Penal Code section 1210.1. Subsequently, defendant was denied probation and sentenced to the middle term of two years in state prison, and awarded the appropriate custody credits.
On April 9, 2007, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the validity of his no contest plea. Defendant cited “factual innocence” for the basis of his appeal. On April 10, 2007, a certificate of probable cause was granted.
Superior Court Case No. FMB700016
On February 14, 2007, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County charging defendant with one count of unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).)
On March 22, 2007, the complaint was amended to include an additional count of driving a vehicle under the influence. (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a).) On that same day, defendant changed his plea to the original unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle charge to no contest, and pled guilty to the new driving a vehicle under the influence charge. Both parties stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. The court denied probation for defendant and sentenced him to two years for violating Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a). Defendant was also awarded the appropriate custody credits.
Defendant was also sentenced to 180 days in San Bernardino County Jail for violating Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a). Appellant was given 46 in-custody credits.
In accordance with the negotiated disposition, defendant’s sentence was ordered to be served concurrently with the sentences imposed in case No. FMB008638 and case No. FMB008185.
On April 9, 2007, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the validity of his pleas based on “factual innocence.” On April 10, 2007, a certificate of probable cause was granted.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Superior Court Case No. FMB008185
On April 3, 2006, narcotics detectives from the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department went to defendant’s address to serve two felony warrants. A resident of the address told detectives that defendant was not home. Shortly thereafter, detectives discovered defendant hiding in the attic.
The parties stipulated to a factual basis, and the statement of facts is taken from the probation report.
Detectives attempted to get defendant out by throwing an “OC” canister grenade into the attic. After several failed attempts, defendant was finally forced out of the attic at gunpoint. In the attic, detectives discovered a “baggie” of methamphetamine, a scale and $40. Defendant admitted the items belonged to him, but denied selling any narcotics. Defendant told detectives he was hiding in the attic because he knew there were arrest warrants out for him in Orange County. Defendant was arrested for possession with intent to sell a controlled substance.
Superior Court Case No. FMB008638
On December 8, 2006, deputies from the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department were contacted by a woman who claimed appellant was leaving annoying messages on her cell phone. After deputies went to defendant’s address and performed a parole search, they discovered a bottle of generic Vicodin in a backpack identified as defendants. Defendant was subsequently arrested for possession of a controlled substance and for a parole violation.
The statement of facts is taken from the probation report.
Superior Court Case No. FMB700016
No factual record was provided for this case. The parties stipulated to a factual basis.
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: McKINSTER J., GAUT J.