Opinion
F076889
10-05-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE MANUEL QUINTERO, Defendant and Appellant.
Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. Nos. F17901616, F17905571)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Don Penner, Judge. Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Peña, J. and DeSantos, J.
-ooOoo-
Appointed counsel for defendant Jose Manuel Quintero asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
Case No. F17901616
On March 11, 2017, defendant's mother came home and found defendant in her living room with a black duffel bag at his feet. The bag appeared to be full and the house looked like it had been ransacked. The mother asked defendant to leave her home. After defendant left, she saw that he had broken her dining room window to gain entry and noticed he had taken several bottles of perfume. She reported he was a methamphetamine addict and had stolen from her before. Defendant was found at the railroad tracks and arrested. He stated he had entered the home to take a shower and did not mean to break the window. He said he wanted to kill himself and needed a program for his addiction. He was placed on an involuntary mental health hold (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5150).
On March 20, 2017, charges were brought against defendant, and on May 10, 2017, he pled no contest to second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b)) and admitted having served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), in return for a suspended five-year local prison term and release to an inpatient substance abuse program upon bed availability.
Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On June 8, 2017, the trial court sentenced defendant as agreed. The court suspended execution of sentence and granted three years' probation with 365 days in jail and release to a long-term inpatient substance abuse program upon availability. The court also imposed various fines and fees.
On June 30, 2017, defendant was released to the Salvation Army program in San Francisco.
On September 18, 2017, the probation department notified the trial court that defendant had violated his probation by failing to complete the substance abuse program. The notice explained that on August 8, 2017, defendant left the Salvation Army program voluntarily and was subsequently terminated from the program; thereafter, he failed to contact his probation officer and his whereabouts remained unknown.
Case No. F17905571
On September 21, 2017, defendant was found inside someone's apartment, lying on a bed. A shopping cart was outside the front door and the apartment had been ransacked. Defendant was arrested. He stated he had entered the apartment previously because a friend let him in to smoke, and when he returned later, he thought it was okay to enter. He took a few items.
On September 25, 2017, charges were brought against defendant (and probation was revoked in case No. F17901616). On October 10, 2017, defendant pled no contest to first degree burglary (§§ 459, 460, subd. (a)) and admitted the same two prior prison term allegations (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) he had admitted in the prior case. The trial court did not offer an indicated sentence.
Sentencing on Both Cases
On November 7, 2017, in case No. F17905571, the trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of six years in prison and struck the two prior prison term allegations. In case No. F17901616, the court ordered the five-year suspended prison term to be executed and served concurrently with the sentence in case No. F17905571, and the court imposed the suspended probation revocation fee. The court recommended that defendant receive drug treatment housing while in prison. The court stated: "I am making a finding pursuant to Penal Code Section 1203.096 that the defendant has demonstrated a history of substance abuse and I'm making a written recommendation to the Department of Corrections that the defendant participate in [a] counseling and education program having a substance abuse component while imprisoned in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation."
On January 17, 2018, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
The trial court clerk declared the notice was sent in a timely manner. --------
On January 29, 2018, the trial court received a letter from defendant in which he explained he had been homeless, addicted to drugs, depressed, and suicidal. He explained he had nowhere to go and had not intended to steal things. He claimed he had not been given his psychiatric medication while in the substance abuse program or in jail. He asserted that defense counsel had not fought for him and had treated him as a loser.
We have undertaken an examination of the entire record, and we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. We recognize the difficulty in housing and rehabilitating defendants who are addicted to drugs and/or suffer from mental illness. Here, we believe counsel and the trial court made a concerted effort to provide defendant opportunities for treatment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.