Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA084506
THE COURT:Kenneth Arthur Paquette appeals from a judgment entered after he was found in violation of probation. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On November 22, 2010, we notified appellant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered. That time has elapsed, and appellant has submitted no brief or letter. We have reviewed the entire record, and finding no arguable issues, we affirm the judgment.
In January 2010, appellant was charged with petty theft with a prior conviction of burglary, in violation of Penal Code section 666. He was convicted upon a plea of nolo contendere, pursuant to a plea bargain. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, and placed appellant on formal probation for a period of three years, upon specified conditions, including the completion of 60 days of Caltrans service, obeying the law, and submitting to search and seizure at any time by any law enforcement officer, with or without a warrant or probable cause. The trial court ordered appellant to report to the Probation Department the following Monday at 8:30 a.m.
On April 2, 2010, after he was stopped for a bicycle traffic infraction, appellant was arrested on suspicion of unlawful possession of a controlled substance. When so notified, the trial court revoked probation and scheduled a hearing on the revocation. When the hearing went forward on May 21, 2010, the parties stipulated to the admission of the probation report, and the prosecution submitted the People’s case on the report.
The probation officer reported that appellant had failed to report to the Probation Department after his release in January, as ordered by the trial court. In addition, appellant was detained by Long Beach police officers on April 2, 2010, after he rode his bicycle in front of a moving car, causing the driver of the car to have to brake abruptly. Officers discovered an oxycodone pill in appellant’s pocket, and arrested him. Appellant admitted to the probation officer that the pill was oxycodone, and that he had obtained it on the street, explaining that he needed it for his shoulder, but had no insurance. He told the probation officer that he was homeless and used “hard” drugs.
Appellant had an outstanding warrant from Massachusetts. The probation officer was contacted by appellant’s probation officer in Massachusetts, who stated that appellant did not have permission to be in California, and his presence here was a violation of his probation there.
Appellant testified on his own behalf. He claimed that the officers illegally searched him, because they admitted to having stopped him only because he interfered with their “chasing pussy” by tailing a car with female occupants. Appellant also testified that the officers pulled him over only because he was in the company of an Hispanic man. He claimed that they searched him before they learned about the Massachusetts warrant. Then, after the officers found the pill, they wrote their report to make it seem that he had done something wrong, when, in fact, he had a legitimate health problem. He admitted that he did not have a prescription, but explained that he needed medication for pain, and had no insurance.
The trial court revoked and terminated appellant’s probation in this case and in a misdemeanor case, the prior conviction underlying appellant’s Penal Code section 666 charge. The court sentenced him to the low term of 16 months in prison. (See Pen. Code, §§ 666, 18.) The court imposed fees and assessments as required by law, and granted custody credit of 145 days, consisting of 61 days of actual custody since appellant’s most recent arrest, 24 days of actual custody prior to appellant’s plea, and 60 good time/work time credits.
We conclude that 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.)
The judgment is affirmed.