P. v. Baker



















Filed 10/15/12 P. v.
Baker CA3











NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED







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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.











IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT

(Sacramento)








>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES DANIEL BAKER, Defendant and Appellant.

C070883 (Super. Ct. No. 11F04230)

Appointed counsel for defendant
James Daniel Baker asked this court to review the record to determine whether
there are any arguable issues on
appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable
error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will
affirm the judgment.

I

On June 15, 2011, law enforcement stopped
defendant while he was driving and searched his vehicle. Inside the vehicle, law enforcement found two
“baggies” containing a usable amount of cocaine, another “baggie” of marijuana,
and three additional “baggies”.

Defendant was
charged with possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd.
(a)). Defendant pleaded no contest, was
granted five years of probation, and was referred to the Proposition 36
program.

On November 4, 2011, defendant failed to
appear for a Proposition 36 progress report hearing. Defendant’s probation was revoked and a
warrant for his arrest issued.
Defendant’s probation was later reinstated.

On December 30, 2011, defendant
admitted a “drug” violation of probation.
Defendant was referred to drug court and the matter was continued to January 30, 2012. Defendant, however, failed to appear for the
hearing in January. Accordingly,
defendant’s probation was revoked and he was “deleted” from the Proposition 36
program.

Defendant was
subsequently arrested and returned to court on February 27, 2012.
Defendant was denied further probation and the court imposed a 16-month
term in county jail. Defendant was
ordered to pay various fines and fees, and was awarded 38 days of custody
credit. That same day, defendant was
convicted and sentenced on an unrelated misdemeanor. Defendant appeals; his request for a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">certificate of probable cause was
denied.

II

Appointed counsel
filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this
court to review the record and determine whether there are any href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">arguable issues on appeal. (Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right
to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening
brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we
received no communication from defendant.


Having undertaken
an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would
result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is
affirmed.







BLEASE , J.







We concur:






RAYE , P. J.






ROBIE , J.