Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Solano County Super. Ct. Nos. FCR223930, FCR227054
Swager, J.
Defendant appeals from a judgment following revocation of probation. His counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to appellant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) He has been advised bye appellate counsel that a Wende brief would be a filed. A copy of the brief was mailed to him, and he was advised that he could file a supplemental opening brief of his own within 30 days, raising issues before this court. We have not received a supplemental brief from the defendant. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On May 10, 2005, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant with possession of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, §11377, subd. (a).) The complaint also alleged that defendant had two prior convictions that resulted in prison terms. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).) On May 18, defendant entered a plea of no contest to the Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a) charge, and the other allegations in the complaint were dismissed. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three years’ probation pursuant to Proposition 36 subject to various terms and conditions.
Case No. FCR223930.
On September 19, 2005, another felony complaint was filed charging defendant with possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, §11377, subd. (a)) and a Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement. He subsequently entered a no contest plea to the possession charge and admitted one of the prior convictions on September 27, 2005. On October 4, 2005, defendant was again placed on probation pursuant to Proposition 36 subject to various terms and conditions.
Case No. FCR227054.
On September 8, 2006, defendant admitted that he violated the terms and conditions of his probation grants by failing to abstain from the use of illegal drugs, failing to appear in court, failing to complete a required program, and failing to maintain contact with the probation department. On October 20, 2006, the court determined that defendant was not amenable to further treatment under Proposition 36. After a hearing on November 21, 2006, defendant was sentenced to a total of three years and eight months in state prison, ordered to pay various fines, register pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11590, and awarded custody credits. This timely appeal followed.
The sentence was calculated as follows: two years for the Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a) violation, plus one year for the Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) allegation in case No. FRC227054, plus a consecutive sentence of eight months in case No. FRC223930.
The facts underlying both cases are not complex and are set forth in the report of the probation officer filed on November 21, 2006. On May 7, 2005, defendant was observed by Vacaville police officers walking in the parking lot of a motel. They knew defendant from prior arrests and “identified him as being on active parole.” As the officers approached him, defendant pulled something out of his pants pocket and dropped it on the ground. The police recovered “a zip lock bag containing .50 grams of methamphetamine, and a plastic tie off bag containing .40 grams of methamphetamine.”
On September 15, 2005, defendant was found inside a residence “where a parole compliance check was completed.” The Vacaville police officers recognized defendant and knew he was on parole. Defendant denied being in possession of “anything illegal” and then consented to a search of his person. The search revealed a small plastic bag in his pants pocket that contained 0.20 gram of methamphetamine. Defendant subsequently admitted that the methamphetamine was his.
DISCUSSION
Defendant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.
Before he admitted the probation violation, he was advised of the constitutional rights he would be waiving. He expressly waived his constitutional rights and knowingly and voluntarily admitted the violation. There was no sentencing error.
We find no arguable issues after a full review of the record and, accordingly, affirm the judgment.
We concur: Marchiano, P. J., Stein, J.