Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCUK-CRCR-08-87837.
SIMONS, Acting P.J.
Defendant Larry James Wolfe appeals an order revoking his probation and sentencing him to two years in state prison. Counsel has advised that examination of the record reveals no arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel informed defendant he may personally file a supplemental opening brief, but defendant has not done so. There are no arguable issues.
BACKGROUND
On February 17, 2009, defendant pled guilty to corporal injury to a spouse (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor making a criminal threat (§ 422). He was placed on three years’ probation subject to standard probation conditions.
All undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.
Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, two counts of dissuading a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1)), one count of criminal threats (§ 422), and one count of misdemeanor willful violation of a court order (§ 273.6, subd. (a)) were dismissed. One count of misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(2)(A)) was dismissed with a People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 waiver.
On November 19, 2009, a petition was filed alleging defendant violated his probation by: (1) failing to attend his November 10 probation appointment; (2) failing to attend his mental health counseling appointments; (3) failing to provide proof of his enrollment in a specified community service program; and (4) being terminated from a domestic violence batterer’s program for failure to attend any classes. On January 5, 2010, after admitting the alleged probation violations, he was reinstated on probation subject to the same terms and conditions.
On February 4, 2010, a second petition was filed alleging defendant violated his probation by: (1) failing to attend his February 3 probation appointment; (2) failing to attend a domestic violence batterer’s program and to “re-engage with mental health”; (3) being terminated from the domestic batterer’s program for failure to attend any classes; and (4) failing to provide proof of attendance with mental health.
On September 3, 2010, after being properly advised of his rights, defendant admitted three of the four alleged probation violation allegations in the second petition. The matter was referred to the probation department for a supplemental report and recommendation.
The October 21, 2010 supplemental probation report stated the following: The corporal injury to a spouse charge emanated from November 21, 2008, when the victim summoned police after defendant became enraged and intentionally backed his vehicle into her brother’s vehicle. The victim told police that two days before, defendant grabbed her throat, applied pressure and threatened to kill her, and, in the past, had threatened to kill her if she made a police report. The police officer heard defendant threaten to kill the victim. Later that day, defendant made veiled threats against the victim during tape-recorded telephone conversations with his son. Defendant denied threatening the victim. Although defendant stated his willingness to complete probation, he failed to engage in any type of treatment despite referrals and re-referrals. The probation officer opined that defendant was not amenable to probation given his adamant denial of his guilt, the seriousness of his underlying conduct, his lack of remorse, and his failure to following through on the terms and conditions of his probation. The probation officer recommended permanent revocation of defendant’s probation and imposition of the three-year midterm prison sentence.
On October 15, 2010, the court revoked defendant’s probation, sentenced him to the mitigated two-year term in state prison and reserved the issue of restitution. On April 1, 2011, the court granted defendant’s motion to correct his custody credits, giving him 300 days of actual credit and 300 days of good time/work time credit (§ 4019).
We conclude defendant was competently represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. There was no error in the proceedings or the sentence imposed.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: NEEDHAM, J., BRUINIERS, J.