Opinion
B227601
08-16-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AN CHANH PHAN, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA075171) THE COURT:
BOREN, P. J., DOI TODD, J., ASHMANN-GERST, J.
Appellant An Chanh Phan violated his probation on drug charges in two consolidated cases. He appeals from the judgment revoking his probation and imposing concurrent mid-term sentences of two years in state prison for violating Health and Safety Code section 11277, subdivision (a) (felony possession of a controlled substance), imposing fines and fees, and awarding custody and conduct credits.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an "Opening Brief" in which no arguable issues were raised. On May 5, 2011, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or arguments that he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
The record contains the following evidence: Los Angeles County Deputy Probation Officer Manuel Rueda testified at the August 6, 2010 contested probation violation hearing that he met with appellant on April 22, 2010, and told him to report monthly to the probation department, register as a narcotics offender with a local police department, and enroll in an approved domestic violence counseling program. Rueda instructed appellant to return to the probation office on May 18, 2010. Appellant failed to follow these instructions and did not have further contact with the probation office.
On the afternoon of June 7, 2010, Deputy Sheriff Cynthia Bearse of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department arrested appellant on a charge of domestic violence. His live-in girlfriend Sandy Huynh, who was eight months pregnant with their child, received a citation. Deputy Bearse testified that she interviewed Huynh in an air-conditioned marked patrol car. Huynh told the deputy that she had awakened appellant, who had taken methamphetamine, to take a walk with her. He woke up angry, refused to take a walk, pushed her into the hallway, shook her "aggressively," and pushed her to the floor with both hands after she bit him in the neck.
Huynh gave conflicting testimony at the hearing. She stated that after she awoke appellant and they began arguing, he never hit, shook or touched her, and that she bit him on the arm out of anger. Huynh denied being interviewed by anyone about what had happened. When shown a photograph of appellant with a bite mark on his neck taken the day of the arrest, Huynh denied knowing how he had received the bite mark.
Appellant testified that he never returned to the probation office because he was waiting for a letter notifying him when to return. He also testified that he did enroll in a domestic violence program and registered as a narcotics offender. He never provided proof of these matters to the probation office because he did not know when he was supposed to meet with his probation officer.
Defense counsel represented that he had called an anger management clinic, which confirmed that appellant had attended four sessions, the last one on May 24, 2010. The prosecution agreed appellant's rap sheet indicated that he had timely registered as a narcotics offender on May 18, 2010.
The court found appellant in violation of his probation in each of the consolidated cases. The court cited appellant's failure to report to the probation officer, his failure to provide proof of enrollment in an anger management program, and his committing domestic violence against Huynh, finding Deputy Bearse's testimony more credible than Huynh's. While the court credited defense counsel's representation that appellant had attended anger management classes, the court found that appellant had failed to attend all sessions as directed.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.