P. v. Duggins
Filed 9/26/07 P. v. Duggins CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KENTRI JAKARTA DUGGINS, Defendant and Appellant. | B197360 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA059569) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David M. Mintz, Judge. Affirmed.
Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Kentri Jakarta Duggins appeals from the order revoking and reinstating probation previously granted upon his negotiated no contest plea to one count of possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11359).[1]
On February 5, 2004 pursuant to a negotiated disposition Duggins pleaded no contest to one count of possession of marijuana for sale. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on three years of formal probation. Conditions of probation included serving 10 days in county jail with credit for time served, payment of various fines and fees, registering pursuant to section 11590, seeking and maintaining employment and/or job training, attending counseling or therapy as directed by his probation officer, abstaining from illicit drug use, submitting to drug testing and searches and not possessing firearms or other dangerous weapons.
On May 19, 2004 the trial court modified Dugginss probation order as requested by the probation department. Because Duggins was currently undergoing hemodialysis for his end-stage renal disease and could not produce urine for narcotics testing, he was ordered to submit to a blood test performed in conjunction with his dialysis.
At a hearing on February 24, 2005 the trial court told Duggins that the probation department had reported his failure to make payments toward his court-ordered financial obligations. The court admonished Duggins to cooperate with the probation department and to make payments as directed. Duggins probation was continued on the same terms and conditions.
At a hearing on June 2, 2005 the trial court stated it appeared from the most recent probation department report[2]that Duggins had failed to report for narcotics testing, had not provided proof of enrollment in a program as ordered and had defaulted on his court-ordered financial obligations. The court admonished Duggins he was to report that morning to the probation department and one more missed narcotics test would result in his commitment to state prison.
On November 23, 2005 Dugginss probation was summarily revoked based on his arrest for possession for sale of cocaine base ( 11351.5). At the probation revocation hearing Los Angeles Police Officer LaSalle Culpepper testified he and his partner were on routine patrol on the afternoon of October 27, 2005 when they conducted a traffic stop of a car after noticing it had no license plates and neither the driver nor the passenger (Duggins) was wearing a seatbelt. Culpepper asked Duggins whether he was on parole or probation, and Duggins said he was. Culpepper handcuffed Duggins, conducted a pat search for weapons and escorted him to the patrol car. Culpepper searched the back of his patrol car before having Duggins sit in the right rear passenger seat. At some point Culpepper had Duggins step out of the patrol car. Alerted by his partner officer, Culpepper then checked the back of the patrol car and found a plastic baggie on the car floor where Duggins had been sitting. The baggie contained what appeared to be rock cocaine. Duggins admitted the baggie belonged to him. Following Dugginss arrest, $500 was found on his person during a booking search.
Tiffany Roberts, Dugginss girlfriend, testified for the defense that Duggins suffered from end-stage renal disease and was currently undergoing dialysis, which affected the strength and movement of his left arm.
During argument, defense counsel maintained Duggins had not possessed the rock cocaine and asserted he would not have been able to reach anywhere for a baggie while handcuffed and seated in the patrol car, particularly with his impaired left arm. Counsel theorized Officer Culpepper had simply missed the baggie of rock cocaine during his initial search of the patrol car.
At the conclusion of the revocation hearing the trial court found Duggins had violated his probation, specifically the condition that he obey all laws, by possessing cocaine base for sale. Dugginss probation was revoked.
On February 22, 2007 the trial court reinstated Dugginss probation on condition it be extended to March 21, 2010, he serve 365 days on electronic monitoring with credit for two days served, he waive all custody credits in the instant case, he register with electronic monitoring program within seven days and all previous terms remain in effect. On the Peoples motion the pending case against Duggins for possession of cocaine base for sale was dismissed.
Duggins timely appealed from the order reinstating probation.
We appointed counsel to represent Duggins on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an Opening Brief in which no issues were raised. On July 26, 2007 we advised Duggins 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.
Duggins was represented by counsel throughout all proceedings. There was substantial evidence to support the finding he violated his probation. He was fully apprised of the consequences of a future probation violation before specifically waiving custody credits. The hearings were fair and comported with due process, and the terms of the reinstated probation did not constitute an abuse of the courts discretion.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Dugginss 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.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
PERLUSS, P. J.
We concur:
WOODS, J.
ZELON, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
[1] Statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.
[2] This probation department report is not part of the record on appeal.
