Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR 228829
Sepulveda, J.
Defendant Conrado Fierros, Jr., appeals from a judgment imposing sentence following revocation of probation. Defendant’s appointed counsel on appeal reviewed the record of this case, did not identify any trial court errors, and asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine if any arguable issues exist for review on appeal. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.) Defendant was advised that he could file a supplemental brief with this court raising any issues he wished to call to our attention, and defendant did not file a brief. We have reviewed the record and, finding no errors or arguable issues for review, affirm the judgment.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
According to the police, defendant and four other young men were gang members who attacked a man they perceived to be a rival gang member. Defendant and his cohorts stabbed the victim in the chest and back. The victim suffered a collapsed lung. The stabbing occurred in October 2005, and defendant was arrested in December 2005.
On December 6, 2005, a felony complaint charged defendant with attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury, and conspiracy to commit the crime of assault. (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 187, subd. (a), 245, subd. (a)(1), 664.) The complaint alleged that the attempted murder was committed with personal use of a knife and that all crimes were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (Pen. Code, §§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1), 12022, subd. (b)(1).)
Defendant was appointed legal counsel to represent him and, in March 2006, entered a negotiated disposition. Defendant pleaded no contest to assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).) In exchange for his plea, all remaining charges were dismissed but defendant agreed that the court could consider the facts underlying the dismissed charges at sentencing. (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, 758.)
Imposition of sentence was suspended, and defendant was placed on three years probation. Probation was conditioned on defendant not consuming alcohol and not frequenting places where alcohol is the chief item of sale. The attack had occurred outside a bar, and defendant said he was drunk at the time of the crime. Additional probation conditions included the requirement that defendant not associate with known gang members and not possess gang-related paraphernalia.
Defendant repeatedly violated the terms of his probation. In August 2006, just a month after being granted probation, defendant was found associating with his street gang when the police made a traffic stop of a known gang member and defendant fled from the vehicle. Defendant was apprehended, and was under the influence of alcohol at the time of his arrest. Defendant admitted violating the gang terms of his probation. His probation was revoked but reinstated with an extension of probation to October 2009.
Defendant violated probation again a few months later, in December 2006. A traffic stop again found defendant in the company of gang members, and defendant’s breath smelled of alcohol. The court found defendant in violation of his probation after a contested probation revocation hearing but reinstated probation in April 2007.
Defendant violated probation a third time in August 2007 when he was found in the home of a known gang member during a police search. Defendant admitted violating probation by associating with known gang members. Probation was reinstated with modifications, against the recommendation of his probation officer who recommended a prison sentence. Defendant wanted to move from Solano County to Stanislaus County and was given courtesy supervision in Stanislaus County. Defendant was prohibited from entering Solano County without prior permission of his probation officers.
Defendant violated probation a fourth time in December 2008. The police arrested defendant when they found him exiting the A & B Food and Liquor Store in Solano County where he had purchased beer. Defendant had not obtained permission from his probation officer to enter Solano County. Defendant claimed he was in the county to visit his sister, who had a stillborn baby a couple of weeks earlier, and that the beer was purchased for his mother. The 40-ounce beer he supposedly purchased for his mother was the same beverage he was drinking at the time of the stabbing for which he was convicted.
The court found defendant in violation of his probation after a contested probation revocation hearing in January 2009. The court rejected defendant’s claim that his sister’s health condition presented an emergency that excused his failure to notify his probation officer of his entrance into Solano County. The court disbelieved defendant’s assertion that his sister’s health condition brought him into the county, and noted that the stillbirth occurred days earlier.
In February 2009, before sentencing, the court ordered defendant’s placement in a diagnostic facility where defendant’s mental health was evaluated. (Pen. Code, § 1203.03.) A psychiatrist examined defendant and found no psychiatric disorder and no need for mental health or substance abuse treatment. Defendant’s probation officer recommended a prison sentence. In April 2009, the court imposed a mid-term prison sentence of three years for defendant’s assault conviction. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).) Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal from the judgment and sentence.
II. DISCUSSION
Neither appointed counsel nor defendant has identified any issue for our review. We have independently reviewed the entire record and find no errors or arguable issues for review. (Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.) Defendant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, both when entering his plea and when charged with violations of probation. His plea was entered after full advisement of his constitutional rights, and was entered freely and voluntarily. The trial court’s finding that defendant violated the terms of his probation is supported by substantial evidence. The court acted well within the bounds of its discretion in refusing to reinstate probation after defendant’s repeated violations of the terms of his probation, and the prison sentence imposed was proper.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Ruvolo, P. J., Rivera, J.