P. v. Bryant
Filed 1/29/13 P. v. Bryant CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
STEVEN BRYANT,
Defendant and Appellant.
D062028
(Super. Ct.
No. SCN281559)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, Aaron H. Katz and Harry M. Elias, Judges. Affirmed.
Steven
Bryant pled guilty to grand theft from a
person (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)) and, in return, all other counts
and two prison prior allegations were dismissed.
prison sentence but stayed execution of the sentence and granted Bryant formal
probation, including 120 days in custody.
A few months after being released from jail, Bryant admitted to
violating the terms and conditions of his probation and probation was
revoked. The court (Judge Elias) vacated
the stay on the three-year sentence.
Pursuant to section 1170, subd. (h), the court ordered Bryant to serve
his prison sentence in local custody.
FACTUAL
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 18, 2010, Bryant exited a
grocery store with a four-pack of a sports drink and a bottle of liquor, but
did not pay for the items. The store
manager chased after him, and repeatedly asked him to return the items. When the store manager grabbed the back of
Bryant's shirt, Bryant swung one of the bottles at the manager, who had to lean
back to avoid being hit. Bryant fled on
foot and was later arrested after being identified by a store employee who
recognized him in a surveillance tape.
On May 31, 2011, Bryant pled guilty to
grand theft from a person in return for the dismissal of all other counts
(including robbery) and two prison prior allegations. The plea bargain also included a "low
lid" sentence and a Cruz waiver
(People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d
1247).
the Cruz waiver which stated in
relevant part that if he failed to appear for sentencing "the sentence
portion of this agreement will be cancelled [and] I [Bryant] will be sentenced
unconditionally, and I will not be allowed to withdraw my
guilty . . . plea."
Bryant failed to appear for sentencing on August 30, 2011, as ordered and a warrant issued. On September
20, 2011, Bryant appeared for sentencing. The court acknowledged Bryant's failure to
appear for sentencing, declined to accept the reason for his absence and
ultimately imposed the three-year sentence.
After being
released from custody, Bryant failed to report to his probation officer as
required by the terms and conditions of his probation. At the request of the probation department,
the court revoked Bryant's probation and set a probation revocation
hearing. On April 19, 2012, Bryant admitted he was in
violation of his probation. The court
vacated the stay on the sentence and ordered execution of the three-year prison
term.
DISCUSSION
Appointed
appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the proceedings in the
superior court. Counsel presents no
argument for reversal, but asks that this court review the record for error as
mandated by
436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as
possible, but not arguable, issues: (1)
whether appellant was properly advised of his rights at his probation
revocation hearing; (2) whether the court erred in not reinstating probation
following the admitted probation violation; and (3) whether appellant's trial
counsel provided competent representation.
We granted
Bryant permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
A review of
the record pursuant to People v. Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v.
California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to
by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably
appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HALLER, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
HUFFMAN, J.
the Penal Code.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2]
The facts are based on
information set forth in the probation officer's sentencing report.
