Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FMB007775. William Jefferson Powell IV, Judge.
Robyn Bramson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ, P. J.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Karen Ann Devita appeals following the revocation and termination of her probation. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Pursuant to a written plea agreement, defendant pled no contest on December 21, 2005, to one count of identity theft. (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a).) Defendant was granted supervised probation for 36 months subject to various terms and conditions.
On January 31, 2008, defendant admitted violating the terms of her probation. The court reinstated probation, but added another condition, which required defendant to complete 40 hours of community service no later than September 1, 2008.
On September 11, 2008, defense counsel told the court that defendant had completed 24 out of her 40 hours of community service. Defendant added that she had some medical problems and needed additional time in order to complete the remaining 16 hours of service. The court agreed to allow defendant more time, but also added 10 additional community service hours as a condition of probation, bringing the total community service hours to 50.
A petition to revoke defendant’s probation was filed on December 11, 2008, alleging she submitted documents to show completion of her community service hours, which were not authentic. On January 27, 2009, the court held an evidentiary hearing on the revocation petition. Defendant’s probation officer testified at the hearing and said defendant had provided two letters (Exhibits 1 & 2) stating she had completed 32 hours of community service at a veterans’ hospital and/or at a drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility that contracts with the veterans’ hospital. The probation officer suspected the letters were not authentic.
When she contacted the volunteer coordinator at the veterans’ hospital, the probation officer was told Exhibit 1 was not the type of letter they would typically provide for confirmation of volunteer services. She was also told there were no records indicating defendant had been a volunteer there. When she contacted the rehabilitation center about Exhibit 2, she learned that Michael Sommers (Sommers), who signed the letter, was a patient of the rehabilitation center, and he acted as a spokesperson for residential patients. The probation officer was also told the rehabilitation center does not generally use volunteers. In addition, defendant told the probation officer that Sommers was her roommate.
Sommers testified on defendant’s behalf. He said he was an “outpatient” at the rehabilitation center beginning in October 2008 and was an “inpatient” at the same facility from approximately November 20, 2008, through December 18, 2008. While Sommers was an outpatient, defendant road with him to the facility on two occasions to complete her community service hours. Later, when he was an inpatient, he saw defendant pushing another patient in a wheelchair near the pharmacy. Defendant told him she was having trouble obtaining verification of her community service hours and asked him to write her a letter. He said he was the “chairman” of a “patients’ organization” at the facility and wrote the letter for defendant. On cross-examination, Sommers admitted he was living with defendant, and that they were involved in a romantic relationship. He also said he obtained letterhead to write the letter from the nurses’ station at the facility.
Based on the testimony and documentary evidence offered at the hearing, the court concluded the letters defendant submitted to show she had completed her community service hours were not credible. As a result, the court found defendant violated the conditions of her probation and terminated her probation. The court found her conduct to be “reprehensible” and concluded that she was “unsuitable for continuing on probation.” In this regard, the court reasoned that defendant had not only violated her probation for the second time, but had also presented forged documents to the court to satisfy a court sanction. The court said defendant’s conduct was “especially egregious.” The court also commented that this was essentially the same type of criminal conduct that had lead to defendant’s earlier guilty plea in this case.
Defense counsel argued that the court should impose the mitigated term because of mitigating factors that existed at the time defendant originally pled guilty in this case—“early admission of wrongdoing and de minimis minor record.” The court said it would consider defendant’s early admission of wrongdoing as a mitigating factor. As an aggravating factor, the court said defendant’s “crimes are increasingly serious in nature relative to time.” The probation report does indicate defendant had a prior misdemeanor conviction for disorderly conduct in 2001 and was on probation at the time she committed the offense in this case. The court sentenced defendant to the midterm of two years in state prison.
DISCUSSION
On March 20, 2009, defendant filed a notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Appointed counsel on appeal has filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth the facts and procedural history, raising no specific issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record. On August 19, 2009, we offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which she failed to do. We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: GAUT, J., KING, J.