Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 194621
Rivera, J.
Defendant Michael Stephenson appeals after the trial court found him in violation of probation. His counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.
Defendant was charged in January 2005, with transportation or sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) and possession of cocaine base for sale (§ 11351.5). The complaint alleged prior violations of section 11352, subdivision (a). Defendant pled guilty to a violation of section 11352, subdivision (a). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted three years’ probation on February 28, 2005. Among the conditions of probation were the provisions that defendant was subject to warrantless searches, that he must not possess any drugs without prescription, and that he must register as a drug offender.
All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.
The district attorney moved to revoke probation in April 2006, on the ground that defendant had possessed marijuana and paraphernalia. In a second incident, defendant had been charged with possession of marijuana and paraphernalia and loitering where children were present, but that on that occasion, the substance in question turned out not to be marijuana. The trial court continued defendant on probation and ordered him to serve ten days in county jail.
The district attorney again moved to revoke probation in October 2006, after defendant was arrested for possession of cocaine base, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. Defendant admitted the probation violation, and the trial court continued him on probation, ordered him to serve 10 days in county jail with credit for time served, and extended the period of probation.
On November 3, 2006, the district attorney moved again to revoke probation after defendant was arrested for transportation or sale of a controlled substance, possession for sale of a controlled substance, conspiracy, possession of marijuana, and possession of paraphernalia. At a contested hearing, Sergeant Gerald D’Arcy of the San Francisco Police Department testified that on November 1, 2006, he saw defendant in an area where drugs are known to be sold. He had a prescription pill bottle in his hand, and another man gave him money. When defendant saw D’Arcy, he said, “Oh, shit,” and dropped the money. The label on the pill bottle defendant was holding indicated the bottle contained morphine. The name on the prescription bottle was Michael O’Donnell. When defendant was searched, an officer found a glass pipe used for smoking cocaine and a baggie containing marijuana.
Defendant testified that when he was walking down the street, he saw a friend of his, Michael O’Donnell, with another man. O’Donnell asked him to look at the pills and tell him whether they were generic. Defendant took the pills and looked at them, while the other man said he wanted to buy the pills and pulled out money. Defendant denied receiving the money.
The trial court found defendant in violation of probation on December 27, 2006. It continued him on probation and ordered him to spend 270 days in county jail, with credit for 57 days. Defendant has appealed from the December 27, 2006 order.
Defendant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. The evidence supports the trial court’s ruling, and we see no abuse of discretion. The court has reviewed the entire record, and there are no meritorious issues to be argued.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Ruvolo, P. J. Sepulveda, J.