Opinion
A158379
06-04-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTHONY RAY DAHL, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Mendocino County Super. Ct. Nos. SCTM-CRCR-18-94311; SCTM-CRCR-18-92814)
Anthony Ray Dahl appeals following the court's revocation of his felony probation in two cases. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We conclude there are no issues requiring further review and affirm.
BACKGROUND
Dahl entered guilty pleas to two counts of inflicting corporal injury on a partner in a dating relationship in violation of Penal Code section 273.5 subdivision (a). In case 18-92814, imposition of judgment was suspended. Dahl was placed on formal probation and required to serve 360 days in jail with 122 days of pre-sentence credit. In case 18-94311, imposition of judgment was also suspended and he was placed on formal probation. Dahl was not assessed jail time, and he received no pre-sentence credit. In each case, he was assessed a $40 security fee under section 1465.8, a $30 criminal conviction fee under Government Code section 70373, a $300 restitution fine under section 1202.4, subdivision (b), and a $300 probation revocation restitution fine under section 1202.44. Among the identical conditions of probation in both cases was a requirement that Dahl complete a nine-month residential drug treatment program. The conditions of probation for the treatment program specified: "You shall receive credit only upon successful completion."
Unless stated otherwise, all statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
Dahl was charged with a probation violation in each case for testing positive for methamphetamine while he was in residential treatment. He admitted the violations. When it came time for sentencing, Dahl's counsel argued that, even though he did not complete the nine-month treatment program, he was entitled to custody credits for his time in the program. Counsel premised this argument on the fact that while Dahl knew he would not get credits until he completed the program, he was never specifically informed that time in treatment was credit eligible. Accordingly, counsel argued that any waiver of Dahl's credit earning status while he was in drug treatment was invalid because it was not a knowing and intelligent waiver. The court was unwilling to award credits for Dahl's failure to complete the program and denied the request. Dahl would never have received probation had he not agreed to the credit earning restriction on his time in a treatment program.
The court found Dahl violated probation in both cases. In case 18-92814, he was ordered to serve the 360-day jail term with credit for 150 days. In case 18-94311, he was ordered to serve a consecutive 30 days with credit for 18 days. Probation was reinstated. Dahl appealed each of the violations and specified that the appeals pertain to matters occurring after his guilty pleas that do not affect their validity.
DISCUSSION
Dahl's counsel has represented that he advised Dahl of his intention to file a Wende brief in this case and of Dahl's right to submit supplemental written argument on his own behalf. Dahl has not submitted briefing. Dahl has also been advised of his right to request that counsel be relieved.
Dahl properly appeals only those issues arising after his plea. Absent a certificate of probable cause, an appeal by a defendant from a judgment entered on a guilty plea may only raise issues falling within two "noncertificate" categories, namely, "issues relating to the validity of a search and seizure . . . and issues regarding proceedings held subsequent to the plea for the purpose of determining the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed." (People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 780, 776.)
The trial court did not err in denying Dahl's request for credits on his incomplete treatment program. As Dahl stated in his declaration supporting the request for credits, while he did not know it was possible he could get credits for unsuccessful time in the program, he knew when he accepted probation that he would only receive credits for completing it. In fact, there would have been no possibility of probation in the event Dahl insisted on getting credits irrespective of his willingness to complete court ordered treatment. In the circumstances there is no basis to conclude any waiver was ineffective. "A waiver of custody credits when probation is conditioned upon completion of a residential treatment program serves as an 'incentive' for the defendant and has the 'salutary goal [of] insuring optimum chances of success in a treatment program, while reserving an appropriate sentence if, despite the opportunity received, the treatment program and probation are not completed.' " (People v. Thurman (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1453, 1460.)
There are no issues that require further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Siggins, P.J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Fujisaki, J. /s/_________
Jackson, J.