Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC470859
ELIA, J.Defendant Rudy Gonzalez appeals from a judgment imposing a state prison sentence after a contested probation revocation hearing. His appointed counsel has briefed no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have conducted our review and find no meritorious issues to be briefed or argued. On November 9, 2007, this court notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. To date, we have not received a response from defendant.
Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we provide "a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed." (Id. at p. 110.) We have also included information about certain motions, stipulations, or other aspects of the trial court proceedings that might become relevant in future proceedings. (Id. at p. 112.)
Facts and Procedural History
According to the probation officer's report in this case, defendant was declared unfit for juvenile court proceedings on October 26, 2004. Thereafter, while still a juvenile, defendant was charged in case number CC470859 with one felony count of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 211/212.5, subd. (a), count one); one misdemeanor count of vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a) and (b)(2)(A), count two) and one misdemeanor count of using or being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a), count three). On November 5, 2004, defendant entered a plea of guilty to count one—the felony burglary and count two—misdemeanor vandalism. In exchange for his guilty pleas, defendant was promised probation, with a condition that he serve a one-year county jail term and that count three would be dismissed by the People. The court informed defendant that if he violated his probation he could be sentenced to up to six years in state prison.
Before defendant entered his pleas the court granted the motion by the People to dismiss count three.
Before defendant entered his guilty pleas, he was advised of his privilege against self-incrimination, his right to confront his accusers and his right to trial by jury as required by Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122. Defendant freely and voluntarily waived those rights. Counsel stipulated to a factual basis for defendant's pleas.
On December 10, 2004, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for three years. Among other things, defendant's conditions of probation included the following: that he serve a one-year county jail term; enter and complete a substance abuse program; and seek and maintain employment.
On March 15, 2007, defendant was arraigned on a probation violation. The petition to modify defendant's probation alleged that defendant had committed three probation violations. Specifically, first, that defendant had committed vandalism and was found to be under the influence of a controlled substance. Second, that defendant failed to seek and maintain employment. Third, that defendant did not provide proof of participating in a substance abuse treatment program.
It appears that defendant had been found in violation of probation on several occasions before the March 15 hearing. At one point, defendant's probation officer sought to have defendant's conditions of probation modified to include mental health counseling. During one probation revocation hearing defendant waived all past and future custody credits.
At the probation revocation hearing, defendant's probation officer Ron Lychak testified that on more than one occasion he had informed defendant of the conditions of his probation. Further, defendant signed the terms of conditions of his probation more than once. One of the conditions of probation was that defendant seek and maintain full employment. Mr. Lychak testified that when defendant first got out of custody, he got a full time job. After several months defendant lost this job. Since that time, defendant had no job.
A second condition of defendant's probation was that defendant was required to complete a substance abuse program. Defendant completed a program called "ESO." However, subsequently, defendant violated his probation and was ordered to complete another substance abuse program. He did not complete another substance abuse program.
Mr. Lychak testified that as a third condition of probation defendant was required to obey all laws. Defendant told Mr. Lychak that some of his bizarre behavior was due to a bad reaction to methamphetamine. Furthermore, while on probation defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor in docket number 762966.
Mr. Lychak testified that defendant came to a regularly scheduled meeting with his knuckles "scuffed up." Mr. Lychak asked defendant what had happened to him. Defendant stated that Lucifer or Satan had picked him up and dragged him across the carpet.
After defendant testified, the court found that defendant had violated his probation. The court sentenced defendant to the mitigated term of three years in state prison on the felony robbery count. The court awarded defendant 35 days of custody credits. The court noted that when defendant received his grant of probation the restitution fine was set at $200. Accordingly, the court imposed, but suspended a parole revocation fine in the same amount. (Pen. Code, § 1202.45.)
After a comprehensive review of the entire record, we have failed to discover any issue requiring this court's attention.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: RUSHING, P. J.PREMO, J.