Opinion
B206852
1-23-2009
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES OMAR JONES, Defendant and Appellant.
Linda Acaldo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Not to be Published in the Official Reports
James Omar Jones appeals from the judgment entered sentencing him to prison for two years following an order revoking probation. Previously, appellant pled no contest to two counts of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), was sentenced to two years in prison with execution of his sentence suspended, and was placed on formal probation for three years under various terms and conditions including that he serve 365 days in jail and that he report to his probation officer within 24 hours after his release from custody. Pursuant to his negotiated plea, six counts of forgery within the meaning of Penal Code section 476 and one count of forgery within the meaning of Penal Code section 475, subdivision (b) were dismissed.
According to the evidence at the preliminary hearing, on May 8, 2006, appellant and companions entered Kohls department stores in Glendora and La Verne and attempted to return merchandise that had been purchased fraudulently with fictitious checks.
On March 19, 2008, at the probation revocation hearing, Marcia Martin a deputy probation officer at the Pomona area office, testified she was assigned to supervise appellant. Although appellant had been instructed by the court to report to probation within 24 hours after his release from custody, after his release on January 29, 2007, appellant did not report. On February 2, 2007, a letter was sent to him instructing him to report within one week or he would be violated, but appellant did not respond to the letter. Appellant did not have a working telephone number on record so there was nothing more the probation office could do. Ms. Martin was not aware appellant had not been released from custody until February 23, 2007. Her records reflected his release date was January 29, 200[7], having received notice from the Sheriff of this release date.
Appellant testified he received no letters from the Los Angeles County Probation Department. He was released from custody on February 23, 2007, on a previous booking number. He was not aware he needed to report to the probation department. He thought he was on summary probation. Appellant admitted that on February 12, 2008, he was arrested for lying to a police officer. He had been drinking and gave the officer a false name. Appellant acknowledged his signature on the plea agreement and his initials in the boxes on the plea agreement.
The court reviewed the felony advisement of rights, waiver, and plea form signed and initialed by appellant. It also reviewed the transcript of the plea wherein appellant stated he accepted and understood all of the terms of his probation, including that he was "to report to the probation department within 24 hours of [his] release from custody[,] . . . to keep the probation officer apprised of [his] residence address at all times[,] . . . to use no name other than [his] true name . . . [, and] to obey all laws, [and] rules and orders of the court [and] probation department . . . ." The court, thereafter, concluded it was clear that appellant was in violation of his grant of probation. "He didnt do anything."
After review of the record, appellants court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On September 16, 2008, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsels compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P. J.
MANELLA, J.