Filed 1/25/17 P. v. Flynn CA5









NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RICKY JAMES FLYNN, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.


F074290

(Super. Ct. Nos. VCF291307, VCF337034)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Gary L. Paden, Judge.
William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant Ricky James Flynn, Jr., appeals from his conviction following his admission of a probation violation in case No. VCF291307 and a plea of no contest in case No. VCF337034.
Appointed counsel for appellant 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.) We sent a letter to appellant advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from appellant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to appellant, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Case No. VCF291307
On the evening of November 13, 2013, police officers responded to a residence in Exeter, Tulare County, regarding a disturbance between two males, appellant and Alfredo Martinez. The officer was told that appellant broke a bathroom window in order to gain access to a third party’s residence. When the officers attempted to detain appellant, he resisted. The officers found a switchblade on appellant’s person during a body search.
On November 27, 2013, in response to an indicated sentence of felony probation with 180 days in county jail, appellant pled no contest to violation of Penal Code section 602.5, unauthorized entry of property, a misdemeanor (count 1), violation of section 69, obstructing or resisting an executive officer in performance of his or her duties, a felony (count 2), and violation of section 21510, possession or sale of a switchblade knife, a misdemeanor (count 5). Counts 3 (resisting an executive officer) and 4 (misdemeanor vandalism) were dismissed. The court ordered appellant released on his own recognizance.
On December 27, 2013, as to count 2, the trial court imposed three years’ probation subject to appellant serving 180 days in the county jail. The court imposed no time on the remaining counts. The court awarded 15 days of actual custody credit plus 14 days of local conduct credit for a total of 29 days of presentence custody credits.
Appellant violated probation and probation was revoked and reinstated on October 16, 2014, April 30 and June 26, 2015, January 27, March 2, and May 3, 2016, resulting in the imposition of additional time in custody and modified conditions of probation. On June 23, 2016, following the violation of probation, which was charged in case No. VCF337034, discussed below, the court revoked probation based on appellant’s failure to obey all laws and based on his failure to report to probation. On July 29, 2016, the trial court terminated and declined to reinstate appellant’s probation. The court sentenced appellant to state prison for the midterm of two years. The court awarded 198 days of custody credit and 198 days of local conduct credit for a total of 396 days of presentence custody credits awaiting sentencing.
Case No. VCF337034
On the morning of June 21, 2016, a City of Exeter Police Officer responded to the home of appellant’s parents. The officer observed appellant to be under the influence of alcohol, and appellant admitted to being drunk during a field sobriety test. The officer took appellant into custody.
Later that day, police were dispatched to appellant’s home in regard to a report of a stolen vehicle. When booked into jail earlier that day, appellant had been found in possession of keys to the stolen vehicle.
On June 23, 2016, appellant was charged with felony unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (count 1), receiving stolen property in violation of section 496d, subdivision (a) (count 2), and public intoxication in violation of section 647, subdivision (f) (count 3).
On July 1, 2016, on the People’s motion and pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b), the court reduced count 1, felony unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle, to a misdemeanor. Thereafter, appellant withdrew his not guilty pleas and pleaded no
contest to count 1. On the People’s motion, the court dismissed counts 2 and 3. On that same date, the court indicated it would sentence appellant to two years on both case Nos. VCF291307 and VCF337034.
On July 29, 2016, in conjunction with the probation revocation and sentencing in case No. VCF291307, the court denied probation in case No. VCF337034, and committed appellant to the Tulare County jail for 180 days, with credit for time served.
Our review of the entire record has revealed no arguable issues on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.