Opinion
E081332
11-03-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SEBASTIAN LEE FARNSWORTH, Defendant and Appellant.
Nate Crowley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FVI22002606 Shannon L. Faherty, Judge. Affirmed.
Nate Crowley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
FIELDS J.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Sebastian Lee Farnsworth was charged by felony complaint with two counts of vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1), counts 1 &3) and one count of second degree burglary (§ 459, count 2). Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pled no contest to all three counts, in exchange for a suspended sentence of three years four months and placement on formal probation for 24 months, under specified terms. The probation department subsequently alleged that defendant violated his probation, and the court revoked his probation and issued a bench warrant. The court later found him in violation of his probation and sentenced him to three years four months in county jail prison.
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.
We use the term "county jail prison" because section 1170, subdivision (h), permits the prison sentence to be served in county jail.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 13, 2022, defendant was charged by felony complaint with two counts of vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(1), counts 1 &3) and one count of second degree burglary (§ 459, count 2).
On October 20, 2022, defendant entered a plea agreement. Before accepting the plea, the court confirmed with him that he initialed and signed the plea form and understood he was pleading no contest to all three counts, in exchange for a suspended sentence of three years four months and formal probation. The court went over his rights with him, and defendant agreed that he was waiving them. The court confirmed that he had enough time to go over the plea form with his attorney. Defense counsel agreed and joined in the waivers. The court read the charges in counts 1 through 3, and defendant orally entered a plea of no contest to all counts; defense counsel joined, and the court accepted. The parties stipulated there was a factual basis for the plea, and the court found that defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his plea.
The court then sentenced defendant, pursuant to the plea agreement, to three years four months in county jail prison. It suspended the sentence and placed him on probation for 24 months under specified terms and conditions, including that he "[r]eport to the [p]robation [o]fficer in person immediately or upon release and thereafter as directed." Defendant signed a copy of the written probation terms, indicating that he had read, understood, and agreed to all the terms.
On November 4, 2022, the probation department filed a petition for revocation of probation and bench warrant, alleging that defendant violated the condition that he report to the probation officer immediately upon his release or as directed. The petition specifically alleged that defendant was ordered to report to the probation department within 48 hours of his release from custody on October 20, but he had yet to report. The court revoked his probation and issued a bench warrant.
On December 5, 2022, defendant appeared in custody with counsel and entered a denial to the alleged probation violation.
On May 16, 2023, the court held a probation violation hearing. A probation officer testified that she had reviewed defendant's probation file and interviewed him. She testified there was no record of defendant checking in with the probation department after he was released from custody. The probation officer also testified that she spoke with defendant, and he told her he was "smoked out on meth" and thought probation was easy since he never had to check in. She testified that she believed he was in violation of his probation. The court found defendant in violation of his probation, ordered the previously revoked probation to remain revoked, and sentenced defendant to three years four months in county jail prison.
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and two potential arguable issues: (1) whether it was error, after defendant's attorney "remained appointed for the probation violation matter," for the probation officer to initiate communication with defendant on December 15, 2022, and seek his admission to violating his probation, and for the prosecutor to use that admission to prove the violation; and (2) whether there was substantial evidence of a probation violation, where the probation officer testified there was no record of defendant reporting to probation, but did not testify as to of what her search and review of department records consisted. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: CODRINGTON Acting P.J., RAPHAEL J.