Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA060708, James R. Brandlin, Judge.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance from Plaintiff and Respondent.
ZELON, J.
Ryan Antonio Reed appeals from the judgment entered following an order revoking his probation and imposing a two-year state prison sentence as a result of his earlier no contest plea to committing identity theft.
Although the Reed is listed in all court documents as “Ryan Antonio Reed,” he told the trial court at his plea hearing that his middle name was “Antoni.”
According to the Probation Officer’s Report, Reed and a confederate used a stolen check and false identification to purchase items at a department store in January 2005. Reed was charged by felony complaint with committing identity theft and second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 530.5, subd. (a), 459). Pursuant to a negotiated agreement, Reed pleaded no contest on February 10, 2005 to committing identity theft. Imposition of sentence was suspended, and Reed was placed on three years of formal probation on condition that he serve 90 days in county jail and complete 10 days of work for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The remaining count was dismissed on the People’s motion.
Reed’s confederate and codefendant Ali Ray McCowen is not a party to this appeal.
On August 25, 2005, the trial court summarily revoked Reed’s probation and issued a warrant for his arrest after he failed to provide the court with proof that he had completed the 10 days of Caltrans work by August 16, 2005. On October 31, 2005, Reed waived his right to a revocation hearing and admitted that he had violated his probation by failing to complete the 10 days of Caltrans work. The trial court revoked and reinstated his probation with credit for 10 days served in jail in lieu of 10 days of Caltrans work.
Apparently, Reed had been in custody for 88 days on a pending case in Orange County, California.
On April 6, 2006, Reed again waived his right to a revocation hearing and admitted that he had violated his probation by failing to report to his probation officer. The trial court revoked and reinstated his probation on condition that he serve 29 days in county jail, with credit for time served.
On January 10, 2007, the trial court informed Reed that if he admitted he had absconded from probation and had not made payments towards his court-ordered financial obligations, he would be sentenced to the lower term of 16 months in state prison. Reed declined to admit he had violated his probation conditions and requested a revocation hearing.
The probation revocation hearing commenced on January 26, 2007 and concluded on February 9, 2007. After Reed’s two probation officers testified, Reed presented conflicting testimony that he consistently had reported to his probation officers as required and that he had provided them with proof of his address, his grandmother’s residence. The court found that Reed’s testimony was not credible and determined from the probation officers’ testimony that Reed had absconded from probation.
On March 22, 2007, after listening to counsels’ arguments, the court declined to reinstate Reed’s probation. The court sentenced him to the middle term of two years in state prison and awarded him 300 days of presentence credit (201 actual days and 99 days of conduct credit). The court ordered Reed to pay a $20 security assessment and a $200 restitution fine. A parole revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45.
We appointed counsel to represent Reed on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised. On July 30, 2007, we advised Reed that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Reed’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: PERLUSS, P. J., WOODS, J.