Opinion
B230676
10-19-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CERRON TARIF DEJOHNETTE, Defendant and Appellant.
Jasmine Patel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. LA058444 & GA080759)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Janice Claire Croft, Judge. Affirmed.
Jasmine Patel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Cerron Tarif DeJohnette appeals from a post judgment order revoking probation and imposing a five-year state prison sentence. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In Los Angeles County Superior Court case No. LA058444, defendant was charged by information on April 11, 2008 with one count of petty theft with a prior theft-related conviction (Pen. Code, § 666). The information specially alleged that defendant had served seven separate prison terms for felonies (id., § 667.5, subd. (b)). Represented by appointed counsel, defendant pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the special allegations.
Case numbers refer to Los Angeles County Superior Court cases.
On August 27, 2008, defendant waived his right to trial and entered an open plea of no contest to committing petty theft with a prior theft-related conviction and admitted the prior prison term allegations. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on five years of formal probation on condition that he serve 365 days in county jail and complete a two-year residential drug treatment program.
In case No. GA080759, defendant was charged by information on August 30, 2010 with commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). The information specially alleged that he had served seven separate prison terms for felonies and was ineligible for probation within the meaning of Penal Code section 1203, subdivision (e)(4).
On November 12, 2010, the trial court dismissed case No. GA080759, the People having elected to proceed on the resulting probation violation in case No. LA058444.
The contested probation violation hearing was held on November 2 and 17, 2010. Glendale Police Officer Jeremy Aliaga testified that on August 1, 2010, he initiated a traffic stop of defendant, who then consented to a search of his car. During the search, Officer Aliaga discovered two bags containing unopened diapers, cosmetics, and cans of baby formula in the trunk. When asked about these items, defendant said he had purchased them for $20 in an alley in the Los Angeles garment district. Defendant explained that because they were damaged, he had bought them at a discount and planned to resell them for a profit. Officer Aliaga expressed his concern to defendant that the items were stolen.
Glendale Police Officer Andres Rico arrived at the scene and spoke with Officer Aliaga. Officer Rico then went to a nearby CVS Pharmacy and watched the store surveillance video for that day. The video showed defendant enter the store and retrieve a reusable shopping bag with a 99 cent price tag. Defendant carried the bag to a store aisle and picked up several items of merchandise, which he put inside the bag. Defendant then left CVS Pharmacy with the bag of merchandise without making payment. Officer Rico recognized the bag that he saw defendant carrying on the video as being identical to one of the bags found in the trunk of defendant's car.
Over defense objections, the trial court allowed Officer Rico and the assistant store manager to testify as to the contents of the store surveillance video, which was not preserved for the hearing, so the defense could not review it.
At one point during testimony, defendant interrupted the proceedings and repeatedly demanded a jury trial and to represent himself. The trial court refused his demands, and defendant became disruptive, screaming and yelling. The court ordered defendant removed from the courtroom for his behavior. After speaking with his attorney, defendant appeared in court without further incident when the hearing concluded a week later.
Michael Zendejas, assistant store manager for CVS Pharmacy, testified that he watched the store surveillance video with Officer Rico and recognized defendant in the video. Zendejas had previously seen defendant in the store on more than one occasion, although not on August 1, 2010.
Defendant did not testify or present other evidence at the hearing.
After counsel argued, the trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant had violated probation by committing this crime.
On December 8, 2010, the trial court sentenced defendant to a term of five years in state prison, consisting of the upper term of three years for committing petty theft with a prior theft-related conviction, plus two years for two of the seven prior prison term enhancements. Defendant was awarded 180 days of presentence credit (120 actual days and 60 days of conduct credit). The court ordered defendant to pay a $20 security fee and a $200 restitution fine. The court imposed and suspended a parole revocation fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45. Defendant timely appealed.
The trial court stayed sentencing on the remaining prior prison term enhancements.
Defendant previously waived his right to any presentence credit in case No. LA058444.
--------
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On June 20, 2011, we advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have received no response to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant's attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
JACKSON, J. We concur:
WOODS, Acting P. J.
ZELON, J.