Opinion
E066304
12-22-2016
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAUREN ANTHONY GRATIANO, Defendant and Appellant.
Cindi B. Mishkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. 16CR011929) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Miriam Ivy Morton and Eric M. Nakata, Judges. Affirmed. Cindi B. Mishkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The court found defendant in violation of his probation and reinstated defendant's probation on modified terms. After counsel for Appellate Defenders, Inc. filed a notice of appeal, 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 identifying four potentially arguable issues: (1) whether defendant's initial plea of no contest was constitutionally valid; (2) whether the court took a sufficient factual basis for the plea; (3) whether the court complied with the procedural requirements for revoking defendant's probation; and (4) whether the court abused its discretion in adding additional terms to defendant's reinstated probation. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 15, 2016, defendant threw a rock through the front window of a restaurant and stole two lights valued at $599 each. On April 9, 2016, defendant broke the glass door of another restaurant and took approximately $200. On April 12, 2016, defendant threw a rock through yet another restaurant window and stole loose change from the cash register. On the same date, defendant threw yet another rock through the glass entrance door of another restaurant and stole five beers. Defendant was already wanted for a previous violation of probation.
On April 15, 2016, the People charged defendant by felony complaint with two counts of second degree commercial burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.) The People additionally alleged defendant had sustained five prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).)
On May 12, 2016, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to the count 1 offense and admitted he had suffered four prior prison terms. In return, the additional count and allegation were dismissed. It was stipulated that the complaint and police reports would provide the factual basis for the plea. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the court granted defendant probation for a term of 36 months on various terms and conditions, including a requirement that defendant serve 365 days in jail with eligibility for the work release program.
On May 26, 2016, the People filed a request for revocation of defendant's probation. The People alleged defendant had violated four terms of his probation when, on May 16, 2016, police arrested defendant for being under the influence of a controlled substance. Defendant additionally admitted using methamphetamine on May 17, 2016, and marijuana on May 18, 2016. On May 23, 2016, officers responded to a call whereupon they found defendant in possession of a hypodermic needle with which he was about to "shoot up drugs"; the officers subsequently arrested defendant.
On May 31, 2016, defendant admitted violating his probation by possessing drug paraphernalia and failing to cooperate with his probation officer. The court found defendant in violation of his probation. The court reinstated defendant on the original terms and conditions of his probation with various modifications, including that he serve a 365 day "Straight Sentence," participate in the InRoads program, and that upon completion of the program, defendant might be released early.
II. DISCUSSION
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 independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J. We concur: HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J. CODRINGTON
J.