Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. NA068029, Arthur Jean, Jr., Judge.
Jolene Larimore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
KITCHING, J.
Narin Nao appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a)). After revoking Nao’s probation for failure to comply with its terms, the trial court sentenced Nao to three years in state prison. We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 9, 2006, Nao agreed to plead no contest to leaving the scene of an accident which resulted in death. In exchange for his plea, Nao was to receive three years of formal probation.
After waiving his right to a preliminary hearing, his right to a jury or court trial, his right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, his right to subpoena witnesses and present a defense and his privilege against self-incrimination, Nao pleaded no contest to leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a)). The trial court found that the constitutional waivers and the plea had been knowingly, intelligently and freely made with an understanding of the consequences. Further, the trial court found a factual basis for the plea based on counsel’s stipulation to the adequacy of the police report. Nao was ordered to, within 24 hours of his release from jail, report to the Probation Department to set up an appointment to have an interview for a probation and sentencing report. He was then ordered to return to court at 8:30 a.m. on April 17 for sentencing.
At proceedings held on April 17, 2006, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Nao on “felony formal probation” for three years under, among others, the following terms and conditions: (1) that he perform 60 days of community service with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); and (2) that he pay restitution to the crime victim in an amount determined by the probation officer. In addition, Nao was to “keep the probation officer advised of where [he] live[d] at all times.”
On February 22, 2008, Nao’s probation was revoked and the matter was set on calendar by request of the Probation Department. Nao was remanded into custody with “no bail.” It was alleged that Nao had failed to put in his time at Caltrans and that he had misrepresented where he lived. At a hearing held on March 14, 2008, Nao admitted violating the conditions of his probation. Probation was, accordingly, revoked, then reinstated as modified in that Nao was to “complete 1 day of Caltrans per week” for 60 weeks. Probation was extended to April 17, 2010 and Nao was “admonished that if there [was] another violation under this case, the court [would] sentence [him] to state prison.”
At a hearing held on January 9, 2009, Nao’s probation was revoked and Nao was remanded to custody until the next hearing scheduled for February 2, 2009. On February 2, a formal violation hearing was set for February 23. At that proceeding, the probation officer testified that Nao “provided false address information” to the probation officer. Nao told the officer he was living at 1966 East Plymouth Street in Long Beach when in fact he was living with his girlfriend in Compton. Because he lied about his address, Nao “wasn’t available for search and seizure, an additional violation.” Nao’s girlfriend testified that, although he spent the night at times, Nao did not live with her. She stated that she and Nao had “been together since [they] were both 16.” She continued, “[N]o matter where he stay or I stay, we are both able to spend the night at each other’s house no matter what.” Nao’s girlfriend admitted that at times he paid the rent and that he had a key to her apartment.
Nao’s brother, Eric Nao, testified that he lived with Nao and his mother in Long Beach. He never told Nao’s probation officer that Nao lived with his girlfriend in Compton. Nary Nao is Nao’s mother. She testified that, to her knowledge, Nao has never lived anywhere but with her in Long Beach.
Nao testified that in 2008 he lived at 1966 East Plymouth Street in Long Beach and that he had never lived anywhere else. He believed that his dispute with his probation officer was just a miscommunication. He testified that he did spend the night at his girlfriend’s home on occasion, but that he usually left the Compton apartment between 11:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. and went home to Long Beach where he woke up every morning. Nao added, “I have been doing my Caltrans like I was supposed to. I report every time. I make a payment. And I am looking for work. Every time I got violated it was for lying. And I could admit that. But this time I am really fighting because I am telling the truth.”
The trial court determined that Nao was not telling the truth and found, “beyond any reasonable doubt,” that Nao was in violation of his probation. The court recognized that Nao had a history of lying to the court and that his relatives were biased. The court commented: “[The probation officer was] really the only unbiased person here in this courtroom giving testimony here today. The others now have to face Mr. Nao as he looks at them through that wire. And they are uncomfortable. They are not telling the truth in my view.”
The trial court sentenced Nao to state prison for the mid-term of three years. In addition, Nao was ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a stayed $200 parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45), and a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)). Nao was awarded presentence custody credit for 89 days actually served and 22 days of good time/work time, or 111 days.
Nao filed a timely notice of appeal on April 1, 2009.
This court appointed counsel to represent Nao on appeal on June 29, 2009.
CONTENTIONS
After examination of the record, appointed counsel properly sought in the trial court correction of Nao’s presentence good time/work time credit from 22 days to 44 days. After so doing, counsel filed an opening brief which raised no issues and requested this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
By notice filed September 30, 2009, the clerk of this court advised Nao to submit within 30 days any contentions, grounds of appeal or arguments he wished this court to consider. No response has been received to date.
REVIEW ON APPEAL
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied counsel has complied fully with counsel’s responsibilities. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443.)
DISPOSITION
If the trial court has not already done so, it is to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect 44 days of good time/work time and 133 total days of presentence custody credit. A corrected abstract of judgment is then to be forwarded to the Department of Corrections. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: KLEIN, P. J., ALDRICH, J.