People v. Tharpe

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LADELL OWEN THARPE, Defendant and…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division

Date published: Nov 24, 2009

No. B214021 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2009)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LADELL OWEN THARPE, Defendant and Appellant. B214021 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Second Division November 24, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA075423

THE COURT:^*

Ladell Owen Tharpe, without obtaining a certificate of probable cause, appeals from the order revoking probation previously granted after his plea of no contest to one count of carjacking. (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced him to the midterm of five years, suspended execution of sentence and placed appellant on five years formal probation subject to conditions, including, among others, that he not own, possess, or have custody of dangerous weapons such as firearms and knives and that he not associate with members of Insane Crip gangs.

At a subsequent probation violation hearing, the following facts were adduced: On the morning of May 14, 2008, Long Beach Police Officer Michael Richens participated in a series of executions of search warrant on Insane Crip and Baby Insane Crip gang members. One of the warrants was executed at appellant’s residence, where he resided with his girlfriend, their children, his mother and two of his brothers. Appellant was not at home.

Upon entry into the residence, appellant’s mother and brother directed the officers to appellant’s bedroom. When Officer Richens entered appellant’s room, he observed a pellet gun and a notebook cover with the letters “B.I.G.,” the Baby Insane Crips gang logo.

Thereafter, the trial court found that appellant violated the terms of his probation by associating with a criminal street gang and possessing the weapon. The trial court therefore imposed the previously suspended five-year sentence.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised. On July 30, 2009, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The order under review is affirmed.