Opinion
B166226.
11-6-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID WAGEMAKER, Defendant and Appellant.
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
David Wagemaker appeals from an order revoking his probation and sentencing him to a term of three years in state prison.
On September 17, 2002, appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and admitted serving a prior prison term. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).) The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on formal probation in accordance with the provisions of Proposition 36. (Pen. Code, § 1210.1.)
On October 8, 2002, the trial court revoked and then reinstated appellants probation because he failed to report to the probation officer and failed to obtain a treatment assessment. (Pen. Code, § 1210.1, subds. (c), (e).) On December 19, 2002, the trial court revoked and then reinstated appellants probation because, among other violations, he failed to report or participate in a drug treatment program, failed to register pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11590, and tested positive for methamphetamine.
On January 22, 2003, the trial court revoked appellants probation because he tested positive for methamphetamine and was arrested for being under the influence of a controlled substance and possessing paraphernalia. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11550, 11364.) The court found appellant to be ineligible for continued placement in a Proposition 36 program (Pen. Code, § 1210.1, subd. (e)(3)(C)), and sentenced him to concurrent two-year sentences for each possession count, plus one year for the prior prison term.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsels examination of the record, he filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.
On October 2, 2003, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. Appellant filed a supplemental brief on October 15, 2003, making various contentions concerning his offenses and probation violations. We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: YEGAN, Acting P.J. and COFFEE, J.