Opinion
C099664
09-06-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. IAN PATRICK ANDERSON, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Super. Ct. No. CR2201367)
MESIWALA, J.
Appointed counsel for defendant Ian Patrick Anderson asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In May 2022, defendant and K.B. were dating when they got into an argument while sitting in a car. Defendant punched K.B. in the face with a closed fist, causing swelling and a cut to her upper eyelid. After driving to another location, defendant got out of the car and poured rubbing alcohol on K.B., threatening to burn her and the car together.
In July 2022, defendant was charged with inflicting a corporal injury on a cohabitant or girlfriend and making criminal threats. The complaint also alleged that circumstances in aggravation may apply.
On July 27, 2022, defendant pled no contest to the making criminal threats offense in exchange for no immediate state prison time and dismissal of the corporal injury count. Defendant also stipulated to the existence of aggravating factors to support a potential future upper term sentence of three years in state prison. Based on his plea, defendant admitted he violated probation in a separate misdemeanor matter by failing to obey all laws; the trial court found him in violation of probation and denied reinstatement of probation without imposing any additional time.
In August 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant according to the plea agreement by granting him three years' formal probation with various terms and conditions, including that he serve 120 days in county jail. The court imposed various fees and fines. The court dismissed any remaining counts.
In March 2023, probation filed a petition and order of revocation of probation, alleging that defendant had violated the terms of his probation as follows: (1) by failing to report as directed to the probation officer in March 2023, (2) by failing to complete an outpatient drug treatment program that he had been ordered to enroll in and successfully complete because he was terminated from the program on March 24, 2023, after failing to attend classes as directed and testing presumptive positive for amphetamine, and (3) by submitting urine samples on two separate occasions in February 2023 that tested positive for amphetamines.
At a violation of probation hearing in August 2023, defendant admitted each of the violations in exchange for 365 days in jail, which was modifiable to a residential treatment program at the probation department's discretion, and reinstatement on probation. The trial court found the probation violations true, imposed 245 days in the county jail after crediting defendant 120 days, and then reinstated defendant on probation on the same terms and conditions as before. The court awarded defendant 8 days of actual credit plus 8 days of conduct credit for a total of 16 days of credit towards the 245-day county jail term. Defendant timely appealed without a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.) Counsel advised defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of the filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
Having examined the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: DUARTE, Acting P. J., KRAUSE, J.