Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Super. Ct. No. DF007174A L. Bryce Chase, Judge.
Eleanor M. Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Harris, J., and Cornell, J.
In September 2005, appellant Gumaro Valenzuela, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled no contest to willful infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5). In October 2005, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on three years’ probation, with various terms and conditions, including that he serve the first year of his probationary period in county jail, complete a one-year batterer’s treatment program and an outpatient substance abuse counseling program, and obey all reasonable instructions of the probation officer.
On January 29, 2007, the Kern County Probation Department (KCPD) filed a “DECLARATION LETTER” alleging that appellant failed to do the following: complete the outpatient substance abuse counseling program, complete the batterer’s treatment program, and report to the probation officer as directed.
On May 1, 2007, following a contested probation revocation hearing, the court found true the allegations set forth above, ordered appellant’s probation revoked, and imposed the four-year upper term on the underlying offense. The instant appeal followed.
Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.
PROBATION REVOCATION HEARING
On December 20, 2006, Hector Barragan, the probation officer who was assigned in January 2006 to supervise appellant on probation, received a notice from the substance abuse program in which appellant had been enrolled indicating appellant had been “terminated due to lack of attendance.”
“[D]ocumentation” provided to Officer Barragan indicated appellant had 27 “unexcused absences” out of 45 “scheduled sessions.” On January 22, 2007, the officer received a notice from the batterer’s treatment program in which appellant was enrolled indicating that appellant had been terminated from the program because of “[l]ack of attendance.”
Our summary of the evidence adduced at the probation revocation hearing is taken from Officer Barragan’s testimony at the probation revocation hearing.
A letter was sent to appellant at his last known address directing him to report to Officer Barragan on January 16, 2007. Appellant “failed to respond.” Subsequently, Officer Barragan went to appellant’s last known address and left a notice with appellant’s sister directing appellant to report on January 17, 2007. Appellant again “failed to report.”
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.