Opinion
E069988
07-30-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARC BRUNER, Defendant and Appellant.
Lynelle K. Hee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. FMB17000153) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Bert L. Swift, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Lynelle K. Hee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
In April 2017, defendant and appellant Marc Bruner pled guilty to one count of identity theft (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a)). In return, defendant was sentenced to a three-year split term, consisting of 90 days in county jail and mandatory supervision for the remaining balance under various terms and conditions of supervision. Defendant subsequently violated the terms and conditions of his mandatory supervision by violating the law, failing to cooperate and follow the reasonable directive of his probation officer, using controlled substances, possessing drug paraphernalia, failing to report to his probation officer, and possessing a deadly weapon.
In January 2018, defendant admitted to violating the terms and conditions of his mandatory supervision as part of a plea deal in a separate misdemeanor case. Defendant's mandatory supervision in his current case was revoked, and he was sentenced to three years in county jail with 431 days of credit for time served. Defendant appeals from the judgment. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.
Defendant was sentenced to 91 days in county jail on the misdemeanor case with 91 days of credit for time served.
II
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The factual background is taken from the probation report. --------
On March 22, 2017, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant with one count of identity theft (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a)).
On April 20, 2017, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to the charge. In return, the People agreed to a three-year split sentence, consisting of 90 days in county jail and mandatory supervision for the remaining balance. Immediately thereafter, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea agreement to 90 days in county jail with 64 days of credit for time served. Two years nine months of the sentence was suspended, and defendant was placed on mandatory supervision under various terms and conditions of supervision. At that time, defendant indicated that he read and understood the mandatory terms of his supervision and that he accepted those terms.
On May 3, 2017, defendant reported to the probation office and was read his mandatory terms and conditions of supervision. Defendant also signed a document stating he understood his supervisory terms and conditions. Defendant was homeless and was directed to report daily to the probation office at 9:00 a.m.
On May 15 and 16, 2017, defendant failed to report as directed.
On May 17, 2017, defendant reported to the probation office and admitted using methamphetamine on May 15, 2017.
On November 7, 2017, defendant called his probation officer and reported that about one and a half months prior, he was given a citation by law enforcement officers for possession of a hypodermic needle.
On November 11, 2017, a deputy from the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department called the on-call probation officer and reported that defendant was riding a bicycle without a light. When the deputy attempted to stop defendant, defendant evaded the deputy and threw a replica handgun onto a gas station's property. Defendant was arrested and charged with misdemeanor resisting or evading a peace officer in violation of Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a)(1).
On November 15, 2017, a petition to revoke defendant's mandatory supervision was filed. The petition alleged that defendant violated the terms and conditions of his mandatory supervision by violating the law, failing to cooperate and follow the reasonable directive of his probation officer, possessing or using a controlled substance unless prescribed by a medical professional, possessing drug paraphernalia, failing to report to his probation officer, and possessing a dangerous or deadly weapon.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, on January 24, 2018, defendant pled guilty to misdemeanor evading a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). Immediately afterwards, defendant admitted to violating the terms and conditions of his mandatory supervision as part of the plea deal in the misdemeanor evading case. At the time of his admission, defendant acknowledged that he understood the terms and the consequences of his admission and that he had discussed the consequences of his admission with his counsel. Defendant's mandatory supervision was thereafter revoked, and he was sentenced to three years in county jail with 431 days of credit for time served.
On February 13, 2018, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
III
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Upon examination of the record, 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 conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. MILLER
J.