Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. S506430
Ruvolo, P. J.
Appellant Alonzo Lorenzo Lewis (appellant) appeals from a two-year state prison sentence he received after the court found him to be in violation of, and thus terminated, his probation. Appellant’s counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel has declared that appellant was notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead was being requested. Appellant was also advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally.
Appellant was originally charged by criminal complaint filed by the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office on February 3, 2005, with one count of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). The complaint alleged that appellant had five separate prior felony convictions, one of which was for the possession of a controlled substance. The complaint also alleged that he had served three separate prior prison sentences within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
On February 7, 2005, appellant pleaded no contest to the charge and the allegations in the complaint were dismissed. As a result of appellant’s plea, sentencing was suspended, and he was placed on three years formal probation with conditions. As material here, the conditions of probation included that appellant obey all laws and refrain from the use or possession of controlled substances.
A petition to revoke probation was filed by the prosecution on March 11, 2005, and was granted on March 22. A bench warrant was issued for appellant’s arrest. Appellant appeared on May 13, 2005, and probation was restored with further conditions imposed. A second petition to revoke probation was filed on July 14, 2005, and was granted by the court on July 19. Probation was again restored and extended by two months by the court on September 13, 2005. A third petition to revoke probation was filed by the prosecution on August 4, 2006, and was granted on August 8. Appellant was arrested for a drug-related offense on March 1, 2007. On that same day, the prosecution filed another petition to revoke probation, which is the subject of this appellate review of the trial court record.
A hearing on the March 1, 2007 petition to revoke probation was held on the morning of June 11, 2007, at the conclusion of which the court found that appellant was in violation of his probation by virtue of his arrest for sale of a controlled substance to an undercover officer. That afternoon, appellant waived his rights to a supplemental probation report, to a delay of six hours between the time of terminating probation and sentencing, and to formal arraignment for sentencing and judgment. Thereafter, the court terminated probation and sentenced appellant to the midterm of two years in state prison, reduced by custody credits totaling 265 days.
Upon our independent review of the record we conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued, or that require further briefing on appeal. We discern no error in the sentencing. The finding that appellant violated his probation, the refusal to reinstate probation, and the sentencing choice made by the trial court were consistent with applicable law, supported by substantial evidence, and were well within the discretion of the trial court. At all times appellant was represented by counsel.
We affirm.
We concur: Reardon, J., Sepulveda, J.