Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. SC-200803.
Dondero, J.
Defendant Damar Johnson entered a guilty plea to one felony count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)) on January 22, 2007. On February 16, 2007, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years. The court imposed a 10-month county jail sentence as a condition of probation, with 84 days of credit for time served.
On August 29, 2008, the prosecutor filed a motion to revoke defendant’s probation. The supplemental report filed by the probation department alleged defendant violated the probation condition obligating him to lead a law-abiding life. On May 11, 2010, defendant admitted he violated his probation by unlawfully selling a controlled substance. The court revoked and reinstated defendant’s probation. The court also imposed a county jail term of 339 days with 339 days’ credit for time served.
On July 21, 2010, the prosecutor again filed a motion to revoke defendant’s probation. Based on the new supplemental report, defendant allegedly violated his probation resulting in his arrest on narcotics and contempt charges. On August 13, 2010, defendant admitted violating his probation. Defendant entered his admission with the understanding the court would impose a low term in state prison of two years, which, after defendant served an additional 62 days in local custody, would result in a paper commitment given his presentence credits already accumulated.
On November 12, 2010, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his admission to the probation violation. The trial court denied the motion on November 17, 2010, and remanded defendant into custody with the understanding he would have enough credits after 55 days in jail to receive a paper commitment.
On January 12, 2011, the court imposed a state prison sentence of two years with 716 days of credits comprised of 623 days of presentence custody credits (Pen. Code, § 2900.5) and 93 days of presentence conduct credits (Pen. Code, § 2933.1). After applying defendant’s credits towards his full sentence, the court determined defendant’s sentence was served (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (a)(3)) and ordered him to report to the parole office. Yet, on January 13, 2011, the court recalled the matter of sentencing because defendant was 14 days short of a paper commitment.
On January 28, 2011, the court imposed a state prison sentence of two years with 730 of presentence credits comprised of 635 days of presentence custody credits and 95 days of presentence conduct credits. After applying defendant’s credits towards his sentence, the court deemed his sentence served (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (a)(3)), and ordered him to report to the parole office. The court imposed a restitution fine of $200 and stayed imposition of a $200 parole revocation fine. The court also ordered a $200 probation revocation fine under Penal Code section 1202.44. A court security fee and criminal conviction assessment was imposed.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal on February 16, 2011.
Defendant’s counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to him, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. Upon independent review of the record, we conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The following facts are derived from the preliminary hearing testimony.
Regarding the original robbery conviction, the parties stipulated to the use of a police report as the factual basis for defendant’s guilty plea to the robbery charge. A summary from the probation report states the following: “On 11/25/06 at approximately 1130 hours, defendant and [an] unknown female entered the Nob Hill Smoke Shop, 1402 California Street, purchased a soda and candy, and then left the store. Approximately ten minutes later, the defendant and the unknown female returned to the store. The defendant walked to the back of the store and forcefully (pushing and holding) kept owner, Jian Zhan Ma, from going to the front of the store, while the unknown female placed twenty cartons of cigarettes inside a dark colored duffel bag.”
The most recent incident serving as the predicate for the revocation of probation was described in the supplemental probation report as follows: On July 17, 2010, “officers were working [on] the 2000 block of Mission [Street, San Francisco]. This area is well known for illegal narcotics activities. Officers noticed a suspect walk up to the defendant and engage in a conversation. Officers observed the suspect give the defendant U.S. currency. The defendant was observed as he spit out a small object and placed the object in the suspect[’s] left hand. Officers believed a drug transaction had taken place. The suspect and defendant were taken into custody. Officers noticed the suspect toss a small object to the ground. Officers found the object was an off-white rock (suspected cocaine). It should be noted the defendant has an active stay away order from 16th and Mission [Street, San Francisco] and has had numerous narcotics arrests in the City and County of San Francisco. The defendant was found to be in possession of $45.00 U.S. currency. The off-white rock [weighed] 0.2 grams.”
On August 13, 2010, defendant was scheduled to have a hearing on the district attorney’s motion to revoke probation. Defendant was represented by the public defender. The hearing did not proceed because defense counsel indicated defendant was prepared to admit the violation. The proposed sentence was going to be two years in state prison with accumulated credits. The court was also prepared to release defendant until August 20, 2010. Both sides anticipated this would be a “paper” commitment because of the accumulated credits. At the hearing on the 13th, the court obtained personal waivers of defendant’s right to a hearing, self-incrimination, right to confront any witness and present evidence. To accommodate defendant, the court continued the surrender date to September 22, 2010.
On November 12, 2010, defendant moved to set aside his acknowledgement he violated probation. He claimed he admitted the violation so he could be released from custody on August 13 to address his child custody issues. At a hearing on November 17, 2010, the trial court denied the application by defendant to set aside his admission of a probation violation.
DISCUSSION
We find no sentencing errors. The term imposed for the probation violation was in accord with the negotiated disposition. The trial court was justified in imposing the restitution fines and other fees.
Defendant was represented by competent counsel throughout the proceedings. We find no legal issues that require further briefing and, therefore, affirm the judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
We concur: Marchiano, P. J., Margulies, J.