Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR233074
Margulies, J.
Fernando Contreras appeals from the revocation of his probation. His counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) Counsel has notified defendant that he can file a supplemental brief with the court. No supplemental brief has been received. Upon independent review of the record, we conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the judgment.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Defendant was charged in a felony complaint, filed May 31, 2006, with one count of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and one count of public intoxication (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f)). In August 2006, defendant pleaded no contest to the possession charge, and entry of judgment was deferred. A year later, in June 2007, defendant admitted violating the terms and conditions of his deferred entry of judgment by providing false information to a police officer, and he was placed on formal probation for three years, with imposition of sentence suspended. Among the terms and conditions of his probation, defendant was required to attend substance abuse treatment and submit to periodic random drug tests.
Defendant entered and, in January 2008, successfully completed the “Healthy Partnerships” treatment program. Beginning at the time of his program completion, on January 24, and continuing into March, he failed to submit to drug testing. Upon inquiry at a hearing on March 14, defendant reported that he stopped testing because, when he completed the treatment program, he was told that he would have to pay for further drug testing through the program. Defendant claimed not to have been aware that he would be provided free testing by the probation department. At a hearing on March 28, 2008, a further violation was reported. Defendant had failed to appear on time for a drug test ordered on March 21. Based on this violation, the district attorney submitted a petition alleging a first drug-related probation violation.
At the probation violation hearing, two probation officers explained that defendant had been given a pre-printed form explaining the testing system. When defendant was notified, through a color system, to appear for testing, he was required to come to the probation office either on the day of notification or the following day. The hours during which testing was conducted were printed on the back of the form. Defendant was notified to appear for testing on March 20, but he did not appear until March 24.
Defendant explained that when he reported for testing on the afternoon of the 20th, he found that the testing center was open only in the morning. Although he left work early to report to the probation office the afternoon of the next day, he ran into traffic. By the time he arrived, the office was closed. The court found defendant in violation of his probation, noting, “[t]he defendant had 48 hours in which to voluntarily test as directed and failed to comply. His excuse for that during that period of time does not obviate the requirement that he comply with the terms and conditions of his probation, as directed.” The court continued defendant on probation, with limited additional conditions.
DISCUSSION
Trial courts have very broad discretion in determining whether a probationer has violated probation, and an appellate court should interfere with the exercise of such discretion only in a “ ‘very extreme case.’ ” (People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 443.) In addition, the facts in a probation revocation hearing are provable by a preponderance of the evidence standard. (Id. at pp. 441–442.) Here the evidence presented at the revocation hearing fully supported the trial court’s finding that defendant failed to appear for drug testing, as required by the terms of his probation, on March 20 or 21, 2008. Indeed, defendant acknowledged this failure. While we recognize that defendant viewed himself as not at fault, the trial court was not required either to accept defendant’s explanation or to conclude that the explanation excused the violation.
Defendant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. We find no arguable issues that require further briefing and accordingly, affirm the judgment.
We concur: Swager, Acting P.J. Flinn, J.
Judge of the Superior Court of Contra Costa County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.