People v. Dyke

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES WILLIAM DYKES, JR.…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Third District, Yolo

Date published: Oct 11, 2007

No. C055003 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2007)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES WILLIAM DYKES, JR., Defendant and Appellant. C055003 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Yolo October 11, 2007

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. 06-694.

SCOTLAND, P.J.

In April 2006, defendant Charles William Dykes, Jr., was placed on Proposition 36 probation (Pen. Code, § 1210 et seq.) for a period of three years, after pleading no contest to possession of methamphetamine (Health and Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and admitting he had served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The charge stemmed from an incident in which, during a parole search, 1.2 grams of methamphetamine were discovered in defendant’s sock. Defendant previously had been sentenced to terms in state prison in 1996 and 2003.

In August 2006, the probation officer filed a declaration alleging that defendant had not reported to the probation department or otherwise engaged in treatment and had not provided proof that he had registered as a drug offender, which were conditions of his probation. The People sought a finding that defendant was not amenable to treatment under Proposition 36 because he impliedly had refused such treatment by failing to participate therein and that he was ineligible for Proposition 36 treatment because he had been sentenced to serve an additional prison sentence for his parole violation. Agreeing, the trial court ruled defendant was not amenable to treatment under Proposition 36 and was ineligible for reinstatement on Proposition 36 probation.

At a later hearing, defendant admitted he had violated the terms of his probation. The trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to state prison for the middle term of two years plus one year consecutive for his prior prison term.

Defendant appealed.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.

We have undertaken an independent examination of the entire record in this case and have found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: NICHOLSON, J., CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.