Opinion
E053070
08-31-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE CARLOS RAYGOZA, Defendant and Appellant.
George W. Taylor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for plaintiff and respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super.Ct.No. FSB904716)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. David Cohn, Judge. Affirmed.
George W. Taylor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for plaintiff and respondent.
Defendant and appellant Jose Carlos Raygoza appeals following the revocation and termination of his probation. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 2, 2009, defendant was charged with one count of heroin possession. (Pen. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) An amended complaint further alleged defendant served four prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5. Against the advice of counsel and pursuant to an agreement with the court, defendant pled guilty on November 20, 2009, to heroin possession and admitted the four prior prison terms.
On December 23, 2009, the court imposed a suspended sentence of seven years in state prison and granted defendant probation for a period of three years, subject to various terms and conditions, including drug treatment. To reach the total suspended sentence, the court imposed three years for the heroin possession and added four one-year consecutive terms for the prior prison terms.
Defendant's probation officer filed a petition to revoke defendant's probation on October 7, 2010. The petition alleged several violations of the terms and conditions of defendant's probation. The court summarily revoked defendant's probation.
The court held an evidentiary hearing on the probation violation allegations on January 21, 2011, and considered testimony by several witnesses. Based on the evidence, the court found defendant violated his probation. Although defendant presented some contrary evidence, the testimony presented by the People supported the trial court's conclusion defendant violated his probation by failing to report to his probation officer and to advise his probation officer about his change of address, and by possessing a hypodermic needle.
There was also some testimony indicating defendant was twice found in possession of vinyl bladders and urine, and the court found this testimony to be credible. Although it found possession of the bladders and urine was not a probation violation, the court concluded this evidence was relevant to whether defendant was amenable to further probation and drug treatment. From this evidence, the court said it was fair to infer defendant intended "to submit a fraudulent urine test." Based on the violations, as well as the possession of the bladders and urine, the court concluded defendant was not amenable to treatment on probation. As a result, the court terminated probation and executed the previously suspended sentence of seven years in state prison.
DISCUSSION
On March 1, 2011, defendant filed a notice of appeal stating he wished to challenge the findings made by the trial court to support the termination of his probation. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Appointed counsel on appeal has filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth the facts and procedural history, raising no specific issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
On June 27, 2011, we offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J.
We concur:
KING
Acting P. J.
CODRINGTON
J.