P. v. Graves
Filed 1/14/10 P. v. Graves CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN GRAVES, Defendant and Appellant. | A124395 (San Francisco City and County Super. Ct. No. 200900) |
Defendant John Graves pleaded guilty to transportation of cocaine salt (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)). After revoking probation, the trial court sentenced defendant to the middle term of four years.
Defendants counsel has filed an opening brief that raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. We find no arguable issues and affirm.
I.
According to the probation report, police officers patrolling the area of Turk and Jones Streets in San Francisco on May 5, 2005 saw defendant talking to another man, later identified as Justo Garcia. The officers saw defendant hand Garcia a white object as the two walked toward Golden Gate Avenue. As the officers got out of their patrol car, they saw defendant throw something toward a dumpster. The officers recovered the object, which was powdered cocaine wrapped in plastic. Defendant and Garcia were arrested. A search of defendant revealed 3.44 grams of cocaine salt in six individually wrapped packets found in an Altoids canister; 2.57 grams of marijuana; and $121 cash.
Defendant was charged with the transportation offense (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)) and with possession for sale of cocaine salt (Health & Saf. Code, 11351). On February 8, 2006, defendant entered a guilty plea to the transportation offense. On June 15, 2007, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three years probation.
On November 29, 2007, the People moved to revoke probation based on defendants arrest for exposing his genitals to a 14-year-old girl who was shopping with her mother at the Spirit Halloween Superstore. Defendant had prior arrests for indecent exposure, and his performance on probation had been poor.
In addition, defendant was arrested for new criminal behavior involving members of a girls soccer team. These charges went to jury trial; the parties agreed that the trial would constitute the probation revocation hearing. Several soccer players testified defendant attended a team practice and exposed himself to them or touched them inappropriately.
On September 25, 2008, the jury convicted defendant of seventeen misdemeanors: four violations of Penal Code section 314, subdivision (1), eight violations of Penal Code section 647.6, and five violations of Penal Code section 243.4.
On January 16, 2009, the trial court revoked probation on the transportation offense and sentenced defendant to the four-year midterm. The court imposed concurrent sentences on the misdemeanor violations.
II.
We have reviewed the record and find no arguable issues. Defendant was represented by counsel at all pertinent portions of the proceedings. He was properly advised of his constitutional rights when he entered his guilty plea. The probation revocation was valid, and was based on evidence presented at a jury trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the middle term, and adequately stated its reasons. There are no errors in the proceedings.
III.
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Marchiano, P. J.
We concur:
_________________________
Margulies, J.
_________________________
Dondero, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
