Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FWV036560 Raymond L. Haight III, Judge.
Jan B. Norman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
HOLLENHORST Acting P. J.
Defendant and appellant Manuel Garcia Castrejon pled guilty to one count of grand theft of a person (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c), count 4). The trial court placed him on probation for a period of three years, under specified conditions. Defendant’s probation was subsequently revoked when he admittedly failed to keep the probation officer informed of his residence. His probation was reinstated, but was then revoked again. Defendant admitted that he failed to report to the probation officer. The court then sentenced defendant to the low term of 16 months in state prison.
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
Counts 1 through 3 were dismissed.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal following the sentencing hearing. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The following facts are taken from the preliminary hearing transcript:
On December 11, 2005, defendant and his friend entered Luis Torga’s auto shop. Torga was selling a car to defendant for someone else and defendant had previously paid a deposit for the car. Defendant asked Torga for either the keys to the car or his deposit money back. Torga responded that defendant still owed another $200 for the car. Defendant got upset, and his friend struck Torga in the chest, knocking him to the ground. Torga got up and ran away.
Angel Molina saw defendant’s friend strike Torga. After Torga ran away, defendant’s friend turned toward Molina and pulled a gun from his waistband. He told Molina to give him the keys to a Toyota car and pointed the gun at Molina’s head. Molina gave defendant’s friend the keys. Defendant then asked Molina to unlock a shop door that led to the parking lot. Molina complied, and defendant and his friend left in the car.
Fernando Mendoza was at Torga’s shop at that time as well. At some point, defendant’s friend put the gun to Mendoza’s forehead and demanded his wallet.
Defendant was charged by information with three counts of second degree robbery (§ 211). After the preliminary hearing, defendant filed a motion to set aside the information, under section 995. He subsequently withdrew the motion and entered a guilty plea to an amended information charging one count of grand theft of a person (§ 487, subd. (c)). On May 5, 2006, the court placed defendant on probation for a period of three years under certain terms, including that he serve 180 days in county jail on weekends.
On September 14, 2006, defendant’s probation was revoked for failure to keep his probation officer informed of his residence. Defendant admitted the probation violation on December 8, 2006. His probation was reinstated, with the modification that the 180 days in county jail be served straight, rather than on weekends.
On March 5, 2007, defendant’s probation was revoked again for failure to report to the probation officer and failure to keep his probation officer informed of his residence. At the probation violation hearing on December 2, 2008, the prosecutor informed the court that the probation violation petition should have also included an allegation that defendant violated the law. As reflected in the probation officer’s report, defendant pled guilty on March 8, 2008, to a misdemeanor, resisting an officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)), was given a conditional and revocable release for 24 months, and given 84 hours of community service and 20 days in jail. Defendant admitted that he failed to report to the probation officer. The court found defendant in violation of probation, terminated probation, and sentenced him on count 4 to state prison for the low term of 16 months, with 235 days credit for time served.
DISCUSSION
Dependant 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 and two potential arguable issues, including: 1) whether defendant’s rights were violated “by an insufficient waiver of a probation revocation hearing and his admission of a probation violation”; and 2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in considering defendant’s prior misdemeanor conviction in deciding what sentence to impose. Counsel has also requested 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.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: MCKINSTER J. KING J.