From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dedmon

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jan 24, 2012
H036797 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2012)

Opinion

H036797

01-24-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL WILLIAM DEDMON, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Monterey County Super. Ct. Nos. SS072613 & SS101930)

Defendant Daniel William Dedmon appeals from an order revoking his probation after he admitted a violation and from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to one misdemeanor count of evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), and driving on a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a).) In 2007 defendant pleaded guilty to multiple drug offenses and the court placed defendant on probation under Proposition 36. After defendant violated his probation three times between 2008 and 2009, the trial court terminated the Proposition 36 probation and placed defendant on formal probation. Thereafter, in July 2010, the probation department filed a fourth probation violation notice based on defendant's failure to report, continued drug use and failure to submit to drug testing.

On August 16, 2010, defendant was apprehended after evading police in a reckless vehicle chase, while driving on a suspended license. This incident formed the basis for a new case against defendant as well as an additional ground to violate his probation in the earlier drug case. Defendant admitted the probation violations and the court revoked probation. The court sentenced defendant to the mid-term of two years on the drug case, awarded custody credits and imposed a variety of fees and fines.

On the evading case the court denied probation and sentenced defendant to 365 days. The court awarded credit for time served and determined that defendant had served out the sentence. This timely appeal ensued.

On appeal, appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. Thirty days have elapsed and we have received nothing from the defendant. Pursuant to our obligation as set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the record but have found no arguable issues on appeal. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

___________________________

RUSHING, P.J.
WE CONCUR:

___________________________

PREMO, J.

___________________________

ELIA, J.


Summaries of

People v. Dedmon

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jan 24, 2012
H036797 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2012)
Case details for

People v. Dedmon

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL WILLIAM DEDMON, Defendant…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Date published: Jan 24, 2012

Citations

H036797 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2012)