Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Nos. PA059539, LA055746, BA252781. Jeffrey M. Harkavy, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Carlo Andreani, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
SUZUKAWA, J.
Christopher J. Main appeals from judgments entered following orders revoking probation. He was sentenced to prison for the middle term of two years, concurrent, in each of the three cases.
On September 11, 2003, in case number BA252781, appellant pled no contest to possession of cocaine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) Imposition of sentence was thereafter suspended and he was placed on three years formal probation pursuant to Proposition 36. (Pen. Code, § 1210.1.)
Thereafter, on numerous occasions he failed to appear in court for progress reports and failed to comply with his programs. Bench warrants were issued and his probation and participation in the Proposition 36 program were terminated and reinstated.
On January 13, 2005, appellant elected to terminate his participation in the Proposition 36 program and probation was reinstated upon certain terms and conditions, including that he spend 90 days in jail.
Thereafter, appellant failed to appear at hearings regarding possible probation violations and progress reports. Probation was revoked and reinstated.
On May 15, 2007, in case number LA055746, while appellant was on probation in case number BA252781, a felony complaint was filed charging appellant with another count of possession of cocaine. It was alleged appellant was ineligible for probation based on two prior felony convictions and that he had served a prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
On May 31, 2007, the new charge was ordered transferred to be heard with case number BA252781. Appellant, thereafter, pled guilty to the charge. Imposition of sentence was suspended and he was placed on formal probation for three years under the terms and conditions of Proposition 36.
Thereafter, appellant failed to appear for a hearing regarding his progress in the Proposition 36 program and failed to comply with his program. Probation was revoked and his participation in the Proposition 36 program was terminated.
Once again, probation pursuant to Proposition 36 was reinstated, appellant failed to appear in court for a progress report, probation was revoked, and the Proposition 36 program was terminated. A bench warrant was issued.
On November 26, 2007, the bench warrant was recalled. Probation remained revoked and the Proposition 36 program remained terminated.
On July 13, 2007, in case number PA059539, while appellant was on probation in the above two cases, another felony complaint was filed charging appellant with one count of possession of cocaine. It was again alleged appellant was ineligible for probation pursuant to Penal Code section 1203, subdivision (e)(1).
On July 23, 2007, appellant pled no contest to the charge.
Imposition of sentence was, thereafter, suspended and he was placed on formal probation for three years under the terms and conditions of Proposition 36.
On September 19, 2007, appellant failed to appear for a Proposition 36 progress report. Probation was revoked, the Proposition 36 program was terminated, and a bench warrant issued.
On November 26, 2007, the bench warrant was recalled, Proposition 36 remained terminated, and probation remained revoked.
On December 21, 2007, appellant stipulated to a violation of probation in each of the three cases. The court found appellant in violation of probation for failing to obey all laws and rules and regulations of the probation department, the treatment program, and the court, and for failing to appear in court and to attend counseling.
The court noted it had read and considered the lengthy probation and sentencing report, detailing appellant’s extensive criminal record going back 35 years. The court observed appellant had unsuccessfully been on numerous grants of probation beginning in 1971 for multiple counts of petty theft, burglary, attempted petty theft, receiving stolen property, lewd conduct, taking a vehicle without owner’s consent, grand theft auto, soliciting acts of prostitution, vandalism, assault with a deadly weapon, drug paraphernalia possession, narcotics possession, damaging power lines, and battery. The court observed it was very apparent that appellant was completely unamenable to treatment and was a career criminal in every sense of the word.
After review of the record, appellant’s 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 July 7, 2008, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. On July 17, 2008, he filed a letter critical of his appellate attorney and the trial judge’s lack of patience. Additionally, he claimed he was not awarded credits to which he was entitled and that the judge was “a substitute and not a Prop. 36 judge.”
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist. Appellant’s claims that the trial judge was impatient, that appellant was not awarded credits to which he was entitled, and that his counsel was ineffective are not supported by the record. Additionally, the record reflects that appellant stipulated that the judge could hear the cause as a temporary judge and that appellant waived his right to be sentenced by the judge who accepted his guilty or no contest pleas. Appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s 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 judgments are affirmed.
We concur: EPSTEIN, P. J., MANELLA, J.