Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. SCD208960, Leo Valentine, Jr., and Charles G. Rogers, Judges.
McDONALD, J.
Upon revocation of William Allen's probation, the trial court imposed a previously suspended sentence of five years in prison. A jury had previously convicted Allen of possessing cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and giving false information to a peace officer, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a)), and Allen had admitted he had served three prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 27, 2007, San Diego police conducted a Fourth Amendment waiver search at a residence. Allen was there and drugs were found near him.
A jury convicted Allen of possession of cocaine and providing false information to a police officer, but acquitted him of possessing methamphetamine for sale. The trial court sentenced Allen to a five-year prison term, but suspended execution of sentence pursuant to a three-year grant of probation. Among the conditions of probation were that he serve 365 days in jail, not use drugs, attend and complete the Set Free Ministries residential treatment program and comply with the registration requirements of Health and Safety Code section 11590.
Allen did not enter the Set Free Ministries program, tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana, and did not update his narcotic offender registration to reflect his address change. At the evidentiary hearing on the probation violations, Allen admitted the three probation violations. The court imposed the previously suspended five-year prison sentence.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks that this court review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether Allen's sentence is unauthorized because he was entitled to sentencing under Proposition 36; and (2) whether the court abused its discretion by not reinstating probation when of all the violations were drug related.
We granted Allen permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Allen on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, Acting P. J., NARES, J.