Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC754737.
Premo, J.
On February 22, 2007, defendant David Armando Montes pleaded guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), a felony, and one count of resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)), a misdemeanor. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on felony probation for two years. In March 2007, defendant’s probation was revoked. Defendant admitted a probation violation and the trial court modified and reinstated probation. Probation was revoked again in August 2007. On December 21, 2007, defendant again admitted violating probation by failing to appear in court and by testing positive for methamphetamine; the trial court again reinstated probation. Defendant’s probation was revoked a third time in March 2009. Defendant admitted violating probation by possessing marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b)), driving without a license (Veh. Code, § 14601), and disturbing the peace (Pen. Code, § 415). Probation was reinstated with the condition that defendant serve nine months in county jail. Defendant appeals from this order modifying and reinstating probation.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant.
I. Factual Background
Because defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing the only facts in the record are those contained in the prosecutor’s petition for modification of the terms of probation. According to that petition, defendant was arrested on January 18, 2007. In the course of a consensual encounter with police on that date, defendant admitted that he had outstanding arrest warrants. When the police questioned him, he attempted to flee on foot but was apprehended, searched, and found in possession of methamphetamine.
II. Discussion
Defendant requested and was denied a certificate of probable cause. Therefore, the appeal is inoperative insofar as it might challenge constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5, subd. (a).) The certificate is not required when the notice of appeal states, as this one does, that it is based upon the sentence or other matters that arose after entry of the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea (or the admission) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4)). Accordingly, we have reviewed the whole record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, focusing upon the sentence and matters that arose after defendant admitted violating his probation. Having done so, we can find no arguable issue for appeal.
III. Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Rushing, P.J., Elia, J.