Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCD223177, Roger W. Krauel, Judge.
McCONNELL, P. J.
In December 2009 Robert Jorgensen entered a negotiated guilty plea to receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)). In February 2010 the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on three years' probation. In November the court revoked probation and sentenced Jorgensen to prison for the two-year middle term. Jorgensen appeals. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In September 2009 Jorgensen unlawfully possessed property of another, knowing the property had been stolen. The terms of his probation required he report to the probation officer, obey all laws and abstain from the use of alcohol. The court revoked probation five times, at least three of which were based on Jorgensen's failures to report to the probation officer, and reinstated probation each time In October 2010 a police officer found Jorgensen in public, with a beer can and an unopened bottle of wine next to him. Jorgensen's breath smelled of alcohol, his eyes were red, his speech was slurred, he was belligerent and disheveled and he had trouble standing, all symptoms of intoxication. The officer arrested Jorgensen for public intoxication (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f)).
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel lists, as possible but not arguable issues, whether Jorgensen was afforded due process at the probation revocation hearing; whether the court abused its discretion by revoking probation; whether the court abused its discretion by failing to reinstate probation; and whether the court abused its discretion by imposing the middle prison term.
We granted Jorgensen permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Jorgensen has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: NARES, J., McDONALD, J.