From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Stewart

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Feb 9, 2012
E054459 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2012)

Opinion

E054459 Super.Ct.No. FMB800597

02-09-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRYAN RICHARD STEWART, Defendant and Appellant.

Richard Schwartzberg, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Rodney A. Cortez, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

On December 30, 2008, a felony complaint charged defendant and appellant Bryan Richard Stewart with two counts of spousal abuse under Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a).

All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, on January 8, 2009, defendant pled guilty to one count of felony spousal abuse. In exchange, the parties agreed that defendant would be sentenced to a maximum initial jail term of 120 days, of which 90 days could be spent in a sober-living facility.

After the filing of a probation report, on February 5, 2009, the trial court sentenced defendant to formal probation, 120 days in custody (subject to the 90-day sober living agreement) with credits of 41 days, and ordered other conditions.

On December 6, 2010, the probation officer filed a petition to revoke probation alleging that defendant had suffered an arrest for a misdemeanor, violating a protective order. On January 31, 2011, a subsequent petition to revoke probation was filed. It alleged an additional charge that defendant had failed to cooperate with his probation officer.

On March 2, 2011, defendant admitted both violations, and probation was terminated. Defendant was sentenced to a prison term of three years, with actual credits of 160 days and behavior credits of 160 days under section 4019. Defendant subsequently filed an in propria persona request to obtain additional custody credits, which the court denied.

On September 1, 2011, defendant filed a notice of appeal, and on September 29, 2011, defendant filed an amended notice of appeal.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

According to the probation report, initial charges involved police responding to the residence of defendant's girlfriend in 2008, where there was an argument. The victim was interviewed; she told the police she had been assaulted.

As to the first petition to revoke probation, the supplemental probation report discussed an investigation by the California Highway Patrol wherein they witnessed an argument between defendant and his girlfriend. When a computer check revealed a restraining order, defendant was arrested.

As to the second petition to revoke probation, the supplemental probation report alleged that defendant failed to cooperate with his probation officer and associated with the victim. The report also reflected outstanding fees.

Defendant waived a hearing and admitted violating his probation. The court sentenced defendant to the middle term of three years, and awarded 160 actual and 160 behavior credits under section 4019.

ANALYSIS

After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed briefs under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief in both cases, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKinster

J.
We concur:

Hollenhorst

Acting P.J.

Miller

J.


Summaries of

People v. Stewart

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Feb 9, 2012
E054459 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2012)
Case details for

People v. Stewart

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRYAN RICHARD STEWART, Defendant…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

Date published: Feb 9, 2012

Citations

E054459 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2012)