P. v. Campanella
Filed 4/23/13 P. v. Campanella CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
GIOVANNI
CAMPANELLA,
Defendant and Appellant.
B244793
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. MA049412)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of
County, Hayden Zacky, Judge.
Affirmed.
California
Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, and Richard B.
Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
>
Defendant
Giovanni Campanella appeals from the trial court’s order finding him in
violation of probation after a contested
hearing. We affirm.
On
July 12, 2010, defendant
was charged by information with committing five felonies, including being a
felon in possession of ammunition. The information also alleged that defendant
had suffered a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the “Three
Strikes†law and had served six prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, §§ 12316, subd. (b)(1), 667,
subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667.5, subd. (b).)
On
October 4, 2010, defendant
pled no contest to the ammunition charge and admitted that he had served one
prior prison term. The court imposed a
four-year prison term, suspended execution of the sentence, and placed
defendant on formal probation for three years.
On
September 11, 2012, the
court found defendant in violation of probation based on his failure to appear
for court-ordered random drug testing, his positive drug results, and his
failure to complete drug counseling. The previously suspended four-year prison
sentence was imposed. This appeal
followed.
After reviewing
the record on appeal, defendant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a
brief asking this court to examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
that he had 30 days to submit a supplemental brief setting forth any issues
that he wished us to consider. On February 4, 2013, we received
defendant’s letter.
Defendant
raises three arguments. First, he cites
issues regarding his preliminary hearing on the original charges. As defendant’s appeal is from the court’s
order finding him in violation of probation and he pled no contest, we have no
jurisdiction to consider matters that occurred prior to his plea. Second, conceding that he submitted three
dirty drug tests, defendant nonetheless contends he was in compliance with the
terms and conditions of probation. The
court’s finding that defendant violated his probation is amply supported by the
evidence. Third, defendant urges that he
is ready to be released from custody because he has turned his life
around. Based on the present
circumstances, we do not have the authority to order his release.
We
have independently reviewed the record and are satisfied that no arguable
issues exist and that defendant has received effective appellate review of the
judgment entered against him. (
259, 277-279; People v. Kelly (2006)
40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.)
The judgment is
affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
SUZUKAWA,
J.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P.
J.
MANELLA, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1]
custody credits. He will file a motion
in the superior court to correct the sentence.
(Pen. Code, § 1237.1.)
