Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. 07-79655 & 08-83978
Reardon, Acting P. J.
Pursuant to a negotiated disposition in case number 07-79655, appellant pled guilty in September of 2007 to felony reckless driving while evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)) and was granted probation. In May, 2008, appellant pled guilty to fraudulent use of an access card (Pen. Code, § 484g) in case number 08-83978 and admitted that the new conviction would constitute a violation of probation in case number 07-79655. Appellant was reinstated on probation in case number 07-79655 and granted probation in the new case, case number 08-83978.
In January 2009, the probation department alleged that appellant violated his probation by being arrested on two narcotics-related charges and by failing to complete a court-ordered drug treatment program. He admitted the violations. Probation in both cases was revoked and appellant was sentenced to the upper term of three years in state prison on his fraudulent use of an access card conviction, with a consecutive eight-month term for his reckless driving while evading an officer conviction.
Counsel for appellant has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have conducted the requested review and conclude that there are no arguable issues.
Appellant was represented throughout the proceedings by counsel. His plea and his admissions of probation violation were validly entered. In support of the upper term, the trial court relied upon appellant’s recidivism: “... the court would note that his prior convictions as an adult are numerous. He has served a prior prison term. He was on felony probation at the time the crime was committed and his prior performance on probation and parole was unsatisfactory.” With respect to the consecutive eight-month sentence, the court stated: “Given the separate nature of the offenses, given his failure to demonstrate any ability to responsibly deal with his matters, I’m going to order that that eight-month sentence run consecutively to the sentence imposed in the other matter.” There was no sentencing error. Judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Sepulveda, J., Rivera, J.