Opinion
A153954
09-17-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LARRY DWAYNE DAVIS, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR-676435)
Defendant Larry Dwayne Davis appeals after the trial court revoked his probation and imposed a three-year sentence. His counsel has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has been apprised of his right to personally file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Defendant was charged in February 2016 with possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, with intent to sell (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a); count 1) and one count of unlawful possession of ammunition (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 2), with two prior strike allegations. According to a presentence report, defendant was seen handing a small white bindle out the window of his home to another person, Patrick Heskett. After Heskett drove away, officers stopped him, and he told them that he had bought methamphetamine from defendant and that he did so approximately once a month. After officers determined defendant was on probation, they searched defendant's home and found two digital scales with what appeared to be methamphetamine residue and two bullets. Marijuana and a glass pipe of a type commonly used for smoking methamphetamine were later found in defendant's bedroom.
Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant pled no contest to count 1. On December 22, 2016, the trial court suspended imposition of judgment and imposed conditions of probation, including the requirements that he obey all laws and that he spend 90 days in jail, and a prohibition on possessing or consuming alcohol and possessing weapons.
Defendant's probation was revoked on January 13, 2017, after defendant was found leaning into the cab of a stolen vehicle with a beer in his hand, and two knives were found in his bedroom. As a result of this incident, defendant was charged with driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and buying or receiving a vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d).
On March 29, 2017, the probation department again moved to revoke probation after defendant was found with 38 naproxen pills and three pay/owe sheets in jail.
Defendant entered pleas in two unrelated cases on May 2, 2017. In one case, he pled no contest to falsifying a court order, as a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 470, subd. (c).) In another, he pled no contest to misdemeanor buying or receiving a stolen vehicle. (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a).) On those matters, he was given a three-year conditional sentence and ordered to serve nine months in county jail. Probation in the case now under appeal was reinstated.
Defendant's probation was again revoked on July 19, 2017, based on allegations that defendant had tested positive for methamphetamine, a small plastic container containing urine had been found in his waistband, and he had consumed alcohol. Defendant admitted the probation violation on August 10, 2017.
On September 13, 2017, defendant pled no contest to an unrelated misdemeanor driving under the influence charge (Veh. Code, § 23152, former subd. (e)), and the court imposed a conditional three-year sentence. In the current case, the court revoked and reinstated probation; among its terms, defendant was required to participate in a residential treatment program.
Two weeks later, on September 27, 2017, defendant's probation was again revoked after he left the residential treatment program without permission. Defendant admitted he violated his probation by failing to complete the treatment program and failing to report to probation.
The trial court denied further probation and sentenced defendant to the midterm of 90 days, with 384 days in custody credits, and imposed fines and fees. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a).) The court declined to award credits in the current case for time that defendant was in custody in connection with one of the misdemeanor cases for which he was sentenced in May 2017.
There are no meritorious issues to be argued.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Schulman, J. We concur: /s/_________
Streeter, Acting P.J. /s/_________
Reardon, J.
Judge of the Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. --------