Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Inyo County No. SICRF06-41571-002. Dean T. Stout, Judge.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Gaut, J.
Appellant was sentenced to state prison for four years, following his admission that he violated the terms of his probation.
BACKGROUND
On May 31, 2006, defendant Rodney Gene Lotter was a guest at the Timberline Motel in Lone Pine. He vandalized his room by destroying furniture, including, but not limited to, breaking the television, breaking up the drawers to a desk, pulling a light fixture out of the wall, removing the door frame to the bathroom, and poking holes in the drywall. The damage was estimated at $3,000.
On June 6, 2006, defendant was charged with a single count of vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)) in a felony complaint. It was further alleged he had served two prior prison terms, as enhancements, within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Defendant pled no contest to the vandalism charge, and admitting both prior prison term allegations. In return for the no contest plea, the prosecutor stipulated to the existence of unusual circumstances so that defendant would be eligible for probation. On June 20, 2006, at a bifurcated sentencing hearing, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for 60 months. The balance of the sentencing hearing, to determine restitution and other fines or penalties, was scheduled for October 20, 2006.
Defendant failed to appear on October 20, 2006. In addition, the court was informed that defendant did not contact probation as he was required to do under the terms of his probation. A bench warrant was issued. On October 25, 2006, the probation officer filed a probation violation complaint, requesting revocation of probation. Defendant was arrested on the bench warrant on March 28, 2007, and was arraigned on March 29, 2007. On April 19, 2007, defendant admitted the violation of probation, acknowledged that the prior sentencing agreement was now void.
It was not so much void as it was moot, or unenforceable, after the defendant violated probation.
At the defendant’s request, a psychiatric evaluation was performed. The court-appointed psychiatrist found defendant did not have a major mental disorder and was mentally competent. On June 12, 2007, defendant was sentenced to the middle term of two years in state prison, with consecutive one-year terms imposed for each of the prior prison term enhancements, for a total term of four years in state prison. He was ordered to pay a restitution fine of $600 pursuant to Penal Code, section 1202.4, subdivision (b), and a probation revocation fee in the amount of $600 (Pen. Code, § 1202.44); a parole revocation restitution fine in the same amount was suspended pending successful completion of parole. He was ordered to pay victim restitution in the amount of $3,000.
Upon request by defense counsel, the trial court recalled the sentence (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (d)), and modified the term by striking one of the prior prison term enhancements, reducing the sentence by one year.
On August 17, 2007, defendant appealed from the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea which do not challenge the validity of plea.
DISCUSSION
At his request, this court appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting that we undertake an independent review of the entire record. We offered appellant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error. Defendant’s admission of the probation violation was free and voluntary, and his failure to report, as well as his failure to appear in court for the balance of his bifurcated sentencing hearing, justify the revocation of probation. We have found no errors in sentencing or in the calculation of presentence credits or the calculation of the amount owed for victim restitution. We have completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: McKinster Acting P. J., Miller J.