P. v. Golden
Filed 2/3/10 P. v. Golden CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTHONY EUGENE GOLDEN, Defendant and Appellant. | E049121 (Super.Ct.No. FVA026822) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Jon D. Ferguson, Judge. Affirmed.
Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On June 22, 2007, defendant and appellant Anthony Eugene Golden (defendant) pled guilty to one count of lewd and lascivious acts with a person under 14 years of age, in violation of Penal Code[1]section 288, subdivision (a); and one count of oral copulation with a person under 18 years of age, in violation of section 288a, subdivision (b)(1). As part of a negotiated plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to the middle term of six years on the first count, and a concurrent term of two years on the second count, for a total term of six years. The sentence, however, was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for 60 months, under specified terms and conditions.
On August 7, 2008, a petition to revoke probation was filed. The following day, defendant denied violating his probation. On October 31, 2008, the trial court held a hearing under People v. Vickers (1972) 8 Cal.3d 451, to revoke defendants probation. Following the testimony of defendants probation officer, Carlos Camacho, the trial court revoked and terminated defendants probation and sentenced defendant to the previously-imposed term of six years. In addition, on March 18, 2009, the trial court imposed a restitution fine of $7,120 under section 1202.4.
Following a successful petition for writ of habeas corpus, defendant was permitted to file a late notice of appeal, which was filed on August 31, 2009.[2]
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Prosecution Case
Probation Officer Camacho testified that he met with defendant for his regular appointment on August 6, 2008. As part of the appointment, the officer searched defendant and found two white pills in defendants fanny pack. Defendant identified the pills as Vicodin. The officer also searched defendants car; he found marijuana and a package of Zig Zag papers, which are commonly used to roll marijuana cigarettes. Defendant did not provide the officer with a prescription for the Vicodin. Defendant told the officer that defendant had obtained the Vicodin from his brother. Defendant told the officer that he had obtained a prescription for the marijuana, but failed to provide Camacho with the prescription. Under term No. 12 of his probation, defendant was prohibited from possessing any controlled substance without medical prescription and written notice by a physician; neither was provided by defendant. According to Probation Officer Camacho, defendant was also in violation of the term that he would violate no law while on probation: Defendant had previously informed the officer that he had received a citation for driving with a suspended license, then told the officer that he had driven to the August 2008 meeting.
B. Defense Case
Defendant stated that he had a prescription for the marijuana on his person, that Probation Officer Camacho had seen it when he searched defendants bag, and that defendant informed his probation officer about the prescription months earlier. Defendant also stated that, although he informed the officer that defendant received the Vicodin from his brother, defendant had a prescription for the Vicodin from L.A. Health Services. Probation Officer Camacho, however, never asked for the prescription. Defendant was also presently receiving both Vicodin and Tylenol 3 from the sheriffs department while in custody. Defendant stated that he was unaware that a doctor was required to submit his prescriptions directly to his probation officer. Defendant stated that he was also on probation in Los Angeles County, which had different requirements, and defendant would have provided his probation officer with all of his prescriptions had he been asked. The probation officer told defendant, at the time he arrested defendant, that he was being arrested for possessing marijuana, not for the Vicodin, until several months later.
Defendant was aware that his license had been suspended, but had paid the fine. Defendant was told by the court clerk that his license was reinstated, and showed Probation Officer Camacho a copy of the abstract that was sent by the court clerk to the Department of Motor Vehicles.
II
ANALYSIS
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
/s/ McKinster
J.
We concur:
/s/ Ramirez
P.J.
/s/ King
J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1]All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
[2]The petition was based on defendants declaration that he asked his attorney to file a notice of appeal, but his attorney failed to do so.
