Opinion
2d Crim. No. B194516
5-10-2007
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GREGORY MARK HERRON, Defendant and Appellant.
California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, and Suzan Hier, Staff Attorney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Gregory Mark Herron appeals the termination of probation pursuant to Penal Code section 1210.1 ("Proposition 36"), and sentence to two years imprisonment. We appointed counsel to represent him in this appeal. After counsels examination of the record, she filed an opening brief raising no issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
On April 9, 2007, we advised Herron that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. We have received a response from him contending that he possessed only a residue of methamphetamine, and that many of the charged violations of Proposition 36 probation were untrue. Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124, we present a factual and procedural summary of the case, and a brief discussion of Herrons contentions.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The prosecutor charged Herron with one count of possession of methamphetamine and one count of providing false information to a police officer. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a).) The prosecutor also alleged that Herron served a prior prison term pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subd. (b). Herron, represented by counsel, received advice of and waived his constitutional rights. He then pleaded guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted Herron 36 months probation pursuant to Proposition 36, with terms and conditions including the payment of fines and fees. The court also dismissed the remaining count and the prison term allegation.
On January 4, 2006, the probation officer filed a notice of probation violations, including failing to report to probation, failing to attend treatment on seven dates, failing to provide proof of registration as a drug offender, and testing positive for drug use on two occasions. Herron admitted the charged violations and the trial court reinstated probation with modified terms.
On May 8, 2006, the probation officer filed a notice of probation violations, including failing to report to probation, failing to attend treatment, failing to provide proof of registration as a drug offender, failing to complete an AIDS/HIV education class, and testing positive for drug use on two occasions. Herron admitted the charged violations and the trial court revoked and then reinstated probation.
On July 13, 2006, the probation officer filed a notice of probation violations, including failing to attend treatment on six dates, failing to provide proof of registration as a narcotics offender, failing to complete the AIDS/HIV education class, and failing to test. On August 8, 2006, Herron admitted the violations. The trial court revoked probation and imposed a middle term sentence of two years imprisonment, along with fines and fees. It awarded Herron 117 days custody and conduct credits.
DISCUSSION
Herron pleaded guilty to the possession of methamphetamine and admitted the charged violations of Proposition 36 probation on three occasions. His guilty plea is an admission of every element of the charged crime of possession of methamphetamine. (People v. Jones (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1102, 1109.) Herron also admitted violating probation as set forth in the notice of charges. He may not now argue the insufficiency of physical evidence of the methamphetamine or the untruth of the probation violation charges.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Herrons attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
YEGAN, J.
PERREN, J.