Opinion
A132877
01-09-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSEPH RAMIREZ, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 205626)
This is an appeal from a judgment and sentence following the revocation of defendant's probation. The judgment contains no finding of probable cause by the trial court. Therefore, this appeal is authorized by Penal Code sections 1237. Defendant's counsel has reviewed the file in this case and has determined there is no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. She has complied with the relevant case authorities. People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. Upon independent review of the record, we conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the judgment.
Ramirez entered a guilty plea to one count of sale of a controlled substance (Health and Saf. Code, § 11352) as part of a negotiated disposition providing probation. On July 2, 2008, imposition of sentence was suspended and the defendant was placed on three years formal probation, subject to several conditions, including an order to stay away from 2034 Mission Street and the obligation to obey all laws. Subsequently, defendant admitted to four separate violations of probation while he was on probation. Each time, Ramirez was reinstated on probation and had certain additional conditions imposed, mainly time in the county jail. On October 23, 2009, his term of probation was extended by agreement to November 1, 2011.
The fifth petition to revoke probation was filed on March 29, 2011. It was based on a new arrest and the details were covered in a supplemental probation report. A contested hearing on the violation of probation was held on June 20, 2011, with the trial court finding Ramirez was again in violation of probation.
The court denied further reinstatement of probation on July 15, 2011. The court sentenced defendant to the aggravated term of five years in state prison based on the original violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352. Credits of 440 actual days, and 440 conduct credits were determined for a total of 880 days' presentence custody credits.
Notice of appeal was filed on July 28, 2011.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Deserae Flores testified at a hearing on June 20, 2011 that she and the defendant, her boyfriend, got into an argument on March 11, 2011. Ramirez had been bothering her throughout the day. When she tried to avoid defendant, Ramirez slapped her in the face and grabbed her by the arm. He told her she could not leave him, and if she tried, he would kill her.
The prosecution also presented certified copies of several criminal law violations including stay-away convictions and a battery conviction against Ramirez from Alameda and Santa Clara counties. These convictions were sustained after Ramirez was placed on probation. Some involved the witness Deserae Flores, who testified at the hearing.
On July 15, 2011, the court found Ramirez in violation of probation and determined the aggravated term of five years in state prison was appropriate. The court articulated its reasons for the specific term after hearing from counsel for the defendant. She indicated the defendant had become an increasing threat to Ms. Flores as well as society, that his probation was not successful, and that the original crime demonstrated professionalism and planning.
DISPOSITION
We have reviewed the matter and find the revocation of probation was appropriate under the facts of the case. The defendant was properly represented by counsel throughout the period he was on probation. There was no abuse of discretion in sentencing the defendant to the aggravated term in light of the lack of compliance with the terms of his probation. The judgment is affirmed.
___________
Dondero, J.
We concur:
___________
Margulies, P.J.
___________
Banke, J.