Opinion
A102467.
7-23-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES DOUGLAS SMITH, Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Charles Douglas Smith appeals after being sentenced to state prison for a total term of three years and eight months. The sentence represents the final disposition in two criminal actions against defendant.
In October of 2001 defendant was charged in action No. CF29599.01 with one count of possessing methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and one count of transporting methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379). On November 9, 2001, he pleaded guilty to the possession count, whereupon the transporting count was dismissed on motion by the prosecution. Counsel for defendant stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. On December 7, 2001, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and admitted defendant to probation on specified conditions, one of which was that he serve six months in the county jail.
On August 30, 2002, the probation department moved to revoke defendants probation for failure to report to his probation officer and not having served his jail sentence. An order of summary revocation and bench warrant issued October 15, 2002. By January 7, 2003, defendant was arrested on the warrant, arraigned on the violation of probation and the matter was set for hearing. On January 24, 2003, the matter was reset to trail a new pending felony case, No. CR32181.01.
Earlier in January, the prosecutor filed a complaint alleging defendant again possessed methamphetamine for sale and maintained a place for sale of the drug (Health & Saf. Code, § 11366). On February 28, 2003, defendant pleaded guilty to the possession charge; the other charge was dismissed; defendant also admitted the pending probation violation in case No. CF29599.01, and; both cases were referred to the probation department for a supplemental report. The probation department recommended the upper term of three years in CF32181.01 and a lower term of 16 months in CF29599.01 which, when imposed consecutively, would amount to one-third of the mid-term, or eight months.
On March 28, 2003, the trial court denied defendants application for a new grant of probation and sentenced defendant in accord with the recommendations of the probation department. Defendant was committed to state prison for the aggravated term of three years in case No. CF32181.01, and a subordinate consecutive eight-month term in case No. CF29599.01.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal on April 9, 2003, appealing the sentence imposed. We appointed counsel, who requested that this court examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 158 Cal. Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071. We have done so and found no arguable issues that require briefing by counsel.
In both of the superior court cases, defendants guilty pleas were entered in compliance with all Boykin/Tahl/Yurko requirements. No error occurred in connection with the revocation of defendants grant of probation in case No. CF29599.01. In stating that defendant and the crimes satisfied six of the negative criteria specified in California Rules of Court, rule 4.414, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants application for a new grant of probation. Having determined that there were five aggravating circumstances and only one in mitigation, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in selecting the aggravated term in case No. CF32181.01 as the principle term of defendants sentence. All of the other decisions made at the sentencing hearing were either supported by the record or authorized by law.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Reardon, J., Sepulveda, J.