Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. No. NA059844. Joan Comparet-Cassani, Judge.
William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
COOPER, P. J.
Joseph Urquieta appeals from a judgment of conviction following a revocation of probation. On February 11, 2004, appellant was charged with one count of possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code § 11359, Count 1). On February 17, 2004, appellant entered a guilty plea to Count 1. Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant was placed on three years of formal probation, with credit for eight days of time served and with various conditions of probation, including 30 days of service with the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans.) The court imposed a restitution fine in the amount of $200 (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)); a $50 laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)); a $100 drug program fee (Health & Saf Code, § 11372.7); and a $20 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a) (1)) and ordered appellant to pay other assessments and surcharges as determined by appellant’s probation officer. (Pen. Code, § 1464; Govt. Code § 76000.) Appellant was ordered to register as a narcotics offender. (Health & Saf. Code § 11590.)
On March 4, 2004, appellant’s probation was revoked after his arrest in Long Beach on robbery, burglary and assault charges. On dismissal of those charges, appellant’s probation was reinstated on May 11, 2004 on the same terms and conditions as previously imposed.
At approximately 11:50 on January 9, 2005, in the area of 15th Street and Pacific Avenue, Long Beach Police Officer Scott Destefano stopped a car driven by appellant. Officer Destefano recovered a large bag of Marijuana from the right side of the driver’s seat where appellant was sitting. The marijuana weighed approximately 78 grams. Destefano also recovered several smaller baggies, $10 in cash and a cell phone.
It was stipulated that the material recovered by Officer Destefano was tested by Elana Quinones, a criminalist with the Long Beach Police Department. Quinones determined that it weighed 78.85 grams and contained marijuana.
Long Beach Detective Richard Carr had been assigned to the narcotics division for 17 years. He testified over 200 times in narcotics cases and previously qualified as an expert on the possession and sale of marijuana. Carr testified that it was his opinion that the marijuana found in appellant’s car was possessed for the purpose of sale. Carr based his opinion on the quantity of marijuana involved, its potential street value of $600 to $700, the existence of packaging material in appellant’s possession, his possession of a cell phone and the absence of any paraphernalia commonly used for smoking marijuana.
Los Angeles County Deputy Probation Officer Valerie Kane was assigned to the Long Beach Office. She was appellant’s probation officer and was familiar with the terms and conditions of his probation. Appellant last reported to Kane on September 6, 2005. On that date, Kane told appellant to report to her again on September 19, 2005. Appellant did not report on that date and never reported again. Appellant did, however, continue making financial payments, ultimately contributing all but $934 of his $2,695 obligation.
According to Kane, appellant was ordered to complete 30 hours of service with CalTrans as a condition of probation. Appellant never signed up for service with CalTrans and never completed his service as ordered.
Between May 21, 2004 and September 6, 2005, appellant tested positive for drugs, including, cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana on two occasions.
According to Kane’s records, appellant was arrested on several occasions in 2004 and 2005. On November 13, 2004, appellant received a citation from the Long Beach Police Department for driving on a suspended license, no license plates, and failure to maintain proof of financial responsibility. On December 19, 2004, appellant received a citation from the California Highway Patrol for driving with a suspended or revoked license, no license plates and failure to maintain proof of financial responsibility. He was subsequently convicted of driving with a suspended license. On December 30, 2004, appellant received a citation from the Long Beach Police Department for driving without car registration, driving with a suspended license, and failure to maintain proof of financial responsibility. On May 21, 2005, appellant was issued a citation by the Long Beach Police Department for driving with a suspended license. On October 22, 2005, appellant was again issued a citation for driving with a suspended license and no license plates.
On October 16, 2006, appellant’s probation was revoked on grounds that appellant: failed to maintain contact and keep scheduled appointments with his probation officer; failed to participate in or complete his 30 days of Cal Trans service; repeatedly tested positive for cocaine and marijuana during routine drug testing; and, on at least five separate occasions, was cited for driving with a suspended license and for other motor vehicle violations.
After a probation violation hearing on February 8, 2007, the trial court revoked probation, declined to reinstate probation and sentenced appellant to the upper term of three years in state prison on count 1. The trial court additionally imposed, but suspended, a parole revocation fine in the amount of $200 and ordered appellant to provide blood and DNA samples. (Pen. Code, § 296.) Appellant was awarded a total of 196 days of presentence custody credits. (Pen. Code, § 4019.)
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on February 8, 2007.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. On June 29, 2007, appointed counsel filed a brief in which no issues are raised. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.) On June 29, 2007, we advised defendant he had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any grounds of appeal, contentions, or argument he wished this court to consider. To date no response has been received.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s appellate attorneys have fully complied with their responsibilities and that no arguable issues favorable to him exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 279-280; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441, 443.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RUBIN, J., FLIER, J.