Opinion
A119298
4-16-2008
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESSE JAMES CONNOLLY, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appellant appeals from his sentence to four years and four months in state prison based on convictions in two superior court cases. His counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
BACKGROUND
In January of 2006 appellant was one of five individuals involved in a fight in Ukiah. Appellant and two other combatants were members of the criminal street gang known as the Norteños. The other combatants were members of the street gang known as the Sureños. The latter combatants sustained visible injuries to their heads and faces and one indicated to the Ukiah Police Department that he and his companion had been assaulted with brass knuckles. Approximately three months later, appellant pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon and/or by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).) He also pled guilty to unlawful participation in criminal street gang activity. (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a).)
Special allegations that appellants conduct promoted a criminal street gang (§ 186.22 (b)(1)), and that he had inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) were dismissed as part of a negotiated disposition in exchange for appellants plea.
In action No. 6-69325 appellant was sentenced to the midterm of three years for assault with a deadly weapon under section 245, subdivision (a)(1), with an additional consecutive eight months for unlawful participation in criminal street gang activity (§ 186.22, subd. (a)). The total sentence was thus three years and eight months. Execution of the sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on three years of formal probation with standard conditions, including that appellant serve 180 days in custody with credit for time actually served, that he be evaluated for substance abuse treatment, and he abstain from using alcohol. A question of victim restitution was reserved.
Approximately a year after this sentence was imposed appellant was charged by complaint in an additional action, No. 7-77939, with two felony DUI counts: Count 1 alleged driving under the influence resulting in injury. (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a).) Count 2 alleged driving under the influence with 0.08 percent or more blood alcohol content with bodily injury. (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b).) Both counts alleged bodily injury enhancements. (Veh. Code, § 23558.)
On July 12, 2007, appellant pleaded guilty to count 2. (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b).) Count 1 and the special allegations were dismissed. As part of the negotiated plea appellant acknowledged that his plea in this new case constituted a violation of his probation in the former case No. 6-69325.
When the second case was filed against appellant, appellants probation officer filed a petition alleging violation of the previous probation.
At the hearing where appellant changed his plea in the second case and also acknowledged that his guilty plea constituted a probation violation, the trial judge made a finding of violation and set both matters jointly for sentencing on August 13, 2007.
At the joint sentencing hearing the court rejected the probation officers recommendation to reinstate probation and executed the three-year, eight-month sentence in action No. 6-69325. The court also imposed an additional eight-month consecutive term in action No. 7-77939.
Accordingly, the total prison sentence imposed was four years, four months. Appellant received 175 days of presentence credits in action No. 6-69325 and 107 days of credits in action No. 7-77939.
A victim restitution hearing was held in action No. 7-77939 and the victims indicated they were not requesting restitution. The trial court reserved the issue of victim restitution.
Appellant filed this timely appeal.
DISCUSSION
We have conducted an independent review of the record, including the probation officers report and recommendations, and we find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
Accordingly the judgment is affirmed.
We Concur:
Kline, P.J.
Richman, J. --------------- Notes: Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.