Opinion
A143722
01-06-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GEORGE JAMES WATCHMAN, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Lake County Super. Ct. No. CR925857)
Defendant George James Watchman filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction that was entered after he admitted violating the terms of his probation. Probation was granted after defendant waived his right to a preliminary examination, and, pursuant to negotiated disposition with the prosecution, entered a plea of no contest to a single charge of inflicting unjustifiable physical pain and mental suffering on his infant son (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)).
Defendant's appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she advises that she finds no arguable issues to present, and, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, requests this court conduct an independent review of the record to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Appointed counsel advised defendant he was entitled to file a supplemental brief, but defendant elected not to do so.
The scope of reviewable issues on appeal after a guilty plea is restricted to matters based on constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings leading to the plea; guilt or innocence are not included. (People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 894-896.) No such ground appears from the record.
Defendant was at all times represented by competent counsel who safeguarded his interests.
The change of defendant's plea complied with the formalities required by Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122. Defendant was advised of the consequences of the change of plea as required by In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857. There was an adequate factual basis for the change of plea.
The decision to revoke defendant's probation is supported by substantial evidence of violation (People v. O'Connell (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1066), and the decision not to terminate defendant's probation as unsuccessful did not constitute an abuse of the trial court's discretion. (People v. Galvan (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 978, 981-982.) The revocation hearing complied with the due process and procedural requirements specified in People v. Vickers (1972) 8 Cal.3d 451. There was an adequate factual basis for defendant's admission that he was in violation of the terms of his probation.
Counsel attests appellant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief. We have received no such brief.
Imposition of the middle term of four years in state prison was not an illegal sentence (See Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a) ["shall be punished by imprisonment . . . in the state prison for two, four, or six years"].) Defendant's custody and conduct credits were correctly calculated in the manner required by Penal Code sections 4019 and 2933.1.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
/s/_________
Richman, J. We concur: /s/_________
Kline, P.J. /s/_________
Miller, J.