Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Super. Ct. No. BA317105 Kristi Lousteau, Commissioner.
Kathleen M. Redmond, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
FLIER, J.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Raul P. Chavez appeals his conviction for sale of a controlled substance, heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)), in case No. BA317105. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Appellant was notified that he could file his own brief. He has not done so. He did, however, explain on his notice of appeal that he believes his rights were violated at the probation violation hearing of a different case, on which he was sentenced concurrently with case No. BA317105.
According to the arrest report, the facts in case No. BA317105 are that appellant sold three balloons of heroin to an undercover police officer. On March 15, 2007, appellant pled guilty in case No. BA317015 to sale of a controlled substance. He agreed to three years of felony probation with 270 days in county jail.
On March 29, 2007, at the sentencing hearing in case No. BA317105, appellant received the agreed-upon sentence and 73 days of total custody credit. He was also ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine, a $20 court security fee, and a $50 drug analysis fee.
At the March 29 proceedings, defense counsel advised the court that appellant was also going to admit a probation violation in case No. BA298764. Defense counsel stated, “I’ve informed him of his rights as to that and he’s going to waive his right to have a P.V. and admit.” After appellant was sentenced in case No. BA317105, the court turned to the violation case. It advised appellant that he was entitled to a formal probation violation hearing. Appellant specifically gave up that right. The court inquired: “Do you agree and admit that you are in violation of probation based upon the offense with which you were just sentenced?” Appellant agreed. His counsel joined.
The court then found appellant to be in violation of probation in case No. BA298764. It reinstated formal probation with new conditions, including 270 days in jail and 73 days of total custody credits to be served concurrently with case No. BA317105. The court again ordered a $200 restitution fine, a $20 court security fee and a $50 drug analysis fee. It asked appellant if he accepted probation as modified. He said he did.
From our examination of the record, we are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities, and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RUBIN, Acting P. J.,EGERTON, J.
Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.