Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FWV021813. Raymond L. Haight III, Judge. Affirmed.
Lisa Holder, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
McKinster, J.
I
INTRODUCTION
On October 11, 2005, defendant and appellant Harold Travelle Armstrong pled guilty to one count of second degree robbery under Penal Code section 211, and two counts of grand theft of a person under section 487.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
On December 14, 2005, defendant was sentenced to state prison for a term of six years four months, and given credit for 195 days served. The trial court pronounced judgment, but suspended the execution of sentence. Defendant was granted supervised probation for 36 months.
On October 31, 2006, pursuant to a petition for revocation of probation, the trial court revoked probation and issued a bench warrant for defendant’s arrest.
On November 26, 2008, after a contested probation violation hearing, the trial court made a true finding on the probation violation and executed the suspended prison sentence of six years four months.
On January 20, 2009, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the probation violation and imposition of sentence, and requested a certificate of probable cause to challenge the guilty plea. The certificate of probable cause was denied.
On January 23, 2009, defendant filed a second notice of appeal.
II
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Prosecution Case
The terms and conditions of defendant’s probation included, but were not limited to the following: (1) to report to the probation officer in person immediately upon release and thereafter once every 14 days or as directed (term No. 3); (2) to cooperate with the probation officer in a plan of rehabilitation and follow all reasonable directives of the probation officer (term No. 4); (3) to not leave the state of California without first obtaining written permission of the probation officer (term No. 6); and (4) to keep the probation officer informed of place of residence, cohabitants and pets, and give written notice to the probation officer 24 hours prior to any changes, and prior to any move, provide written authorization to the post office to forward mail to the new address (term No. 7).
According to Probation Officer Landry, defendant’s last recorded appearance at the San Bernardino Probation Department occurred on November 21, 2005, prior to sentencing. During that meeting, defendant was directed to keep in contact with probation. Moreover, defendant was advised that probation was in the process of completing interstate compact paperwork for defendant; it was estimated to take 60 to 120 days to be completed. Defendant was further advised not to leave California until the interstate compact paperwork was completed.
Probation officer Carrion, defendant’s assigned probation officer, was in contact with defendant by telephone throughout the sentencing process until December 2005. Officer Carrion informed defendant on several occasions that he needed to report to probation to complete the necessary interstate compact paperwork and pay related fees before the paperwork could be completed. Defendant did not come into the office.
On October 18, 2006, Officer Carrion attempted to reach defendant by calling the telephone numbers listed in his probation file. The telephone number defendant had provided to probation was disconnected. Defendant did not provide updated contact information. Moreover, Officer Carrion left a telephone message with defendant’s sister directing defendant to call into probation immediately. Defendant never responded.
For a California probationer to live in another state while on probation in California, the probationer must be granted an interstate compact. Defendant never received written permission from the probation department to live in another state and was never granted an interstate compact. Defendant left California and failed to report to probation.
In November of 2008, Officer Carrion was informed by a probation office in Minnesota that defendant was taken into custody. Thereafter, defendant was extradited and brought to court in California on the probation violation.
B. Defense Case
Prior to sentencing, defendant was released on his own recognizance. The court ordered defendant to report to probation within 48 hours of his release. Defendant went to the probation department immediately upon his release.
Defendant filled out the paperwork he was instructed to fill out, and advised probation in writing of his mother’s Minnesota address and telephone number, as well as alternative numbers where he could be contacted. Probation advised defendant that he did not have an assigned probation officer and instructed defendant to return to the office in a few weeks.
Approximately one week after his release, defendant left California to attend to his sick mother in Minnesota. Prior to leaving, however, he went to the probation office to meet with a probation officer. Defendant was told he had not been assigned an officer.
One month later, in December of 2005, defendant returned to California and went to the probation office to meet with a probation officer. Again, defendant was told that he had not been assigned an officer. At this visit, defendant was informed that he could not leave California without probation’s permission. Defendant was advised that he would wait a lengthy period before he would be permitted to leave the state.
On each visit to the probation office, defendant filled out probation department paperwork to record his contact with probation.
In December 2005 or January 2006, after his third contact with probation, defendant returned to Minnesota. Defendant did not return to the probation office in California because he was focused on caring for his ill mother. Defendant also believed that probation would get in contact with him since he left his contact information.
When defendant returned to Minnesota in December 2005 or January 2006, he advised his Minnesota probation officer, Tina Wood, that defendant was on probation in California and that he left California without permission.
C. The Trial Court’s Findings
The trial court found that defendant violated term Nos. 4, 6, and 7 of his probation by failing to: (1) cooperate with the probation officer in a plan of rehabilitation and follow all reasonable directives of the probation officer; (2) not leave the state of California without first obtaining written permission of the probation officer; and (3) keep the probation officer informed of place of residence and give written notice to the probation officer 24 hours prior to any change. The court found that defendant did not violate term No. 3 of his probation because he reported to probation within 48 hours of his release from custody.
The trial court revoked the suspension of sentence and ordered that the sentence be in full force and effect. The court stated that the court’s only option was to impose the suspended sentence because the case involved a suspended state prison sentence.
III
ANALYSIS
After 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 defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Hollenhorst, Acting P.J., Richli, J.