P. v. Burgess
Filed 5/21/13 P. v. Burgess CA2/7
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
SEVEN
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CHANCE SHERWIN BURGESS,
Defendant and Appellant.
B244747
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. GA077670)
APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court
of
County
Elaine Lu, Judge.
Affirmed.
Randall
Conner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________
Chance Sherwin Burgess appeals from a post-judgment order
revoking and reinstating his probation with modified terms and conditions.
In 2009
Burgess was charged in a felony complaint with
Quanae Williams, the mother of his child (Pen.Code, § 273.5, subd. (a),
count 1),
present (§§ 459, 667.5, subd. (c)(21), count 2),
and misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a), count 4).
Burgess
waived his constitutional rights to a
preliminary hearing and a trial and entered a plea of no contest to inflicting
corporal injury as charged in count 1.
In accordance with the negotiated agreement, the trial court suspended
imposition of sentence and placed Burgess on five years of formal probation on
condition he serve 180 days in county jail and participate in one year of
of parenting classes. The remaining
counts were dismissed on the People’s motion.
At a May 4, 2012 progress hearing the trial
court summarily revoked Burgess’s probation and scheduled a contested probation
violation hearing after learning from Burgess’s probation officer that Burgess
had failed to complete his domestic violence counseling and parenting classes.
Burgess and
his probation officer testified at the probation violation hearing on May 18, 2012. After their testimony the trial court found
Burgess in violation of probation for failing to report to his probation
officer and to attend domestic violence counseling classes. The court reinstated Burgess on probation
subject to the modified conditions that he serve 90 days in county jail and
waive custody credits for both his previously served 180-day sentence and newly
imposed 90-day sentence in county jail.
(People v. Johnson (2002) 28
Cal.4th 1050, 1053-1055.)
Burgess
filed a notice of appeal from the
“judgment rendered†on May 18,
2012, which we construe as the post judgment order on that date
revoking and reinstating his probation.
We
appointed counsel to represent Burgess on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed
an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On February 26,
2013 we advised Burgess he had 30 days within which to personally
submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date. We have examined the entire record and
are satisfied Burgess’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities
of counsel and no arguable issues
exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145
L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006)
40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The order
is affirmed.
PERLUSS,
P. J.
We
concur:
WOODS, J.
ZELON, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Statutory references are to the Penal
Code.
