From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Campbell

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division
Apr 16, 2009
No. B208094 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2009)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Nos. NA067513 & NA068385, Ross M. Klein, Judge.

Tara Hoveland, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


ALDRICH, J.

Richard D. Campbell appeals from the judgments entered following revocation of probation previously granted in superior court case Nos. NA067513 and NA068385. The trial court sentenced Campbell to two years in prison. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Facts.

a. Case No. NA067513.

At approximately 9:30 p.m. on October 1, 2005, Signal Hill Police Officer Russ Hefte and his partner, Officer Steven Owens, were on patrol near the intersection of Junipero Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. As he was driving south on Junipero Avenue, Hefte saw two individuals walking North. When they saw the police car, the two “looked a little nervous” and walked into the parking lot of a nearby motel. When the two individuals walked out of the lot on the other side, Hefte stopped, got out of his patrol car, approached the couple and asked them where they were going. One of the individuals, Campbell, told Hefte that he was going to his hotel room and pointed east on Pacific Coast Highway.

Campbell was wearing a large backpack. When Hefte noticed an open bottle of an alcoholic beverage in the pack, he asked Campbell to take off the backpack and set it on the ground. Campbell complied with the officer’s request. When Hefte then asked Campbell if he had any identification, Campbell pulled from his back pocket three citations. Each citation was a notice to appear for a traffic or misdemeanor violation issued to Jack Campbell at 4152 Walnut Avenue in the City of Long Beach.

While Owens conducted a records check, Hefte patted down Campbell. After obtaining Campbell’s permission to search his backpack, Hefte found three glass pipes commonly used to smoke crack cocaine and a small, off-white rock-like substance later determined to be rock cocaine.

Hefte took Campbell into custody. As he was seating Campbell in the patrol car, Hefte asked Campbell what his name was. Campbell told the officer that his name was Richard Campbell, that he was on parole and that he “probably had a parole warrant.”

Steven Owens was on patrol with Hefte on the night Cambell was taken into custody. Because Campbell had told Hefte that his first name was different from that which appeared on the citations, Owens suspected Campbell had committed identity theft. The officer drove to the address on the citations, 4152 Walnut Avenue in Long Beach, to contact the man who Owens believed was the real Jack Campbell.

At the Walnut address, Owens met Jack Campbell, Richard Campbell’s brother. Jack Campbell told Owens that he had not given his brother, Richard, permission to use his name and address.

b. Case No. NA068385.

Campbell was found to have possessed cocaine base.

2. Procedural history.

a. Case No. NA067513.

Campbell was charged by information filed November 2, 2005 with possession of cocaine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a); “false personation,” or impersonating another, in violation of Penal Code section 529; and possession of a smoking device, a misdemeanor in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11364, subdivision (a). It was further alleged that Campbell had served 16 prison terms for various offenses within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).

On November 2, 2005, Campbell was advised of and waived his right to a court or jury trial, his right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, to subpoena witnesses and present a defense, and his privilege against self-incrimination and pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a).

The trial court sentenced Campbell to the mid-term of two years in state prison, suspended imposition of the sentence and placed Campbell on formal probation for a period of three years on the condition, among others, that he spend 365 days in county jail. In addition, the trial court ordered Campbell to pay a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), and a $50 lab analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5). Campbell was given credit for 59 days actually served and 29 days days of good time/work time, for a total of 88 days. The trial court dismissed the remaining counts and allegations in furtherance of justice (Pen. Code, § 1385).

b. Case Nos. NA067513 and NA068385.

At proceedings held on December 19, 2005, a probation violation hearing was held with regard to case No. NA067513. The trial court found Campbell in violation of probation, then reinstated it.

At proceedings held the same day, the trial court noted that Campbell had been charged in case No. NA068385 with possession of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). The trial court addressed Campbell and stated: “Your attorney says you wish to change your plea to a plea of guilty or no contest to take advantage of a drug treatment program pursuant to Proposition 36; is that correct?” Campbell responded, “Yes.” After the prosecutor advised Campbell that he had the right to have a jury or court trial, the right to confront and cross-examine any witnesses who testified against him, the right to use the subpoena powers of the court to present a defense, and the privilege against self-incrimination, Campbell indicated that he understood his rights and was willing to waive them. The prosecutor advised Campbell that the maximum time he faced was six years in state prison. However, after Campbell entered his plea, he would be “referred to the CASC Center for evaluation for a drug treatment program pursuant to Proposition 36.” Campbell would be sent back to the trial court on January 4, 2006 for a progress report and, if he then successfully completed the program, the case against him would be dismissed. Campbell then pleaded no contest to possession of a controlled substance, cocaine base, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a).

The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Campbell on three years probation. Among the terms of probation imposed were a $50 laboratory analysis fee, a $200 restitution fine and a stayed $200 parole revocation restitution fine.

On February 27, 2006 and August 17, 2006, Campbell’s probation was revoked for his failure to appear when ordered to do so. His probation was then reinstated in both instances. On September 12, 2006, Campbell was found to have again violated the terms of his probation. The trial court terminated his probation under Proposition 36, placed him on three years formal probation under various terms and conditions, including that he pay a $200 fine and penalty assessment, a $200 restitution fine and a probation administration fee.

At a hearing held on September 27, 2006, it was again noted that Campbell had violated the conditions of his probation. Probation was reinstated for “the last time” provided he was accepted into the Veteran’s Administration drug live-in program. The trial court warned Campbell that if he again violated the terms of his probation, the court would sentence him to two years in prison.

It was again found that Campbell had violated the terms of his probation on March 8, 2007. The trial court revoked, then reinstated probation on the condition the Veteran’s Administration accepted him and he completed a one-year live-in treatment program. The trial court indicated that the order applied to both case No. NA067513 and case No. NA068385. The trial court instructed Campbell that “if [he] walk[ed] away from the VA program within one year then... [the court was] going to order [Campbell] committed to the Department of Corrections for the mid-term of two years.”

On July 16, 2007, a bench warrant was issued for Campbell’s arrest.

At a hearing held on August 13, 2007, Campbell indicated that he had been discharged from the Veteran’s Administration live-in program in December 2006 and, since that time had been attempting to get into another live-in drug rehabilitation program called Bell Housing. Campbell’s counsel argued that, since Campbell had been attempting to get into another live-in program, the trial court should give him one more chance. After some consideration, the trial court agreed to give Campbell “one last chance.” The trial court quashed the bench warrant and reinstated probation under the same conditions as previously imposed.

On April 21, 2008, Campbell admitted violating probation in case Nos. NA067513 and NA068385. After considering a supplemental probation report, the trial court sentenced Campbell to two years in prison for his conviction in case No. NA067513 and two years in prison, to run concurrently to the sentence imposed in NA067513, for his conviction in case No. NA068385. The trial court awarded Campbell presentence custody credit for 237 days actually served and 118 days of good time/work time, for a total of 355 days. The trial court ordered Campbell to pay a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), a stayed $200 parole revocation restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), a $20 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)) and a $50 narcotics analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5).

Campbell filed a timely notice of appeal on May 14, 2008.

This court appointed counsel to represent Campbell on appeal on August 25, 2008.

CONTENTIONS

After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief which raised no issues and requested this court to conduct an independent review of the record.

By notice filed February 3, 2009, the clerk of this court advised Campbell to submit within 30 days any contentions, grounds of appeal or arguments he wished this court to consider. No response has been received to date.

REVIEW ON APPEAL

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied counsel has complied fully with counsel’s responsibilities. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443.)

DISPOSITION

The judgments are affirmed.

We concur: KLEIN, P. J., KITCHING, J.


Summaries of

People v. Campbell

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division
Apr 16, 2009
No. B208094 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2009)
Case details for

People v. Campbell

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD D. CAMPBELL, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division

Date published: Apr 16, 2009

Citations

No. B208094 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2009)