P. v. Bright
P. v. Bright
Filed 9/19/12 P. v. Bright CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Plaintiff and Respondent,
BILLY JOE BRIGHT,
Defendant and Appellant.
from a judgment of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles
County. Eleanor J.
Hunter, Judge. Affirmed.
D. Gorden, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On August 4, 2011, Billy Joe Bright
entered a negotiated plea of no contest to possession of cocaine base and
admitted allegations that he had three prior “strike” convictions and had
served three prior prison terms within the scope of Penal Code section 667.5,
subdivision (b). (Undesignated date
references pertain to 2011.) The trial
court granted defendant’s motion under People
v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 529–530,
with respect to all three of defendant’s admitted strikes. In conformity with the plea agreement, the
trial court imposed, but suspended execution of, a six-year term, consisting of
the high term of three years plus one year for each prior prison term
enhancement. The court placed defendant
on formal probation for three years upon conditions that included reporting to
the probation department immediately upon release from jail and thereafter
reporting monthly. The court expressly
and repeatedly warned defendant that it would revoke his probation for any
violation, even a minor one.
27, the probation department filed with the court a notice of violation
stating, inter alia, that defendant had last reported to probation on August
22. The trial court summarily revoked
defendants probation. On January 25, 2012, the trial court
held a formal probation revocation hearing at which two probation officers
testified that defendant had reported to probation twice, with the second
occasion being August 22. Defendant
testified that he had reported to the probation department on August 15 and
August 22. On August 22 he was told
Officer Lazarius was his probation officer and given a phone number for
Lazarius. Thereafter, defendant unsuccessfully
tried to reach Lazarius by phone for a few weeks. Eventually, defendant spoke to Lazarius, who
told defendant his probation officer was Reed.
Defendant tried to reach Reed by telephone for some time, then went to
the probation office to see Reed, but was told she was on vacation until
November 2. Defendant then testified
that this visit to attempt to see Reed occurred three to five days after he had
last reported on August 22.
expressly found defendant’s testimony was not credible, revoked his probation
for failure to report to probation monthly, and imposed the previously
suspended prison term.
On August 8, 2012, we advised defendant
he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to
consider. To date, we have received no
examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s attorney has
fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People
v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.