P. v. Hager
Filed 5/30/13 P. v. Hager 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
CRAIG JACOB HAGER,
Defendant
and Appellant.
E056921
(Super.Ct.No.
FVI1000934)
E056923
(Super.Ct.No.
FVI1201823)
OPINION
APPEAL
from the Superior Court of
Bernardino County.
Miriam I. Morton, Steve Malone, and Jules E. Fleuret, Judges. Affirmed.
Neil
Auwarter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Case FVI1000934
On
April 23, 2010, a complaint charged defendant and appellant Craig Jacob Hagar
with making criminal threats under Penal Code
646.9, subdivision (a) (count 2); and making annoying telephone calls under
section 653m, subdivision (a), a misdemeanor (count 3).
On August 9, 2010, defendant entered into a
contest to count 2, stalking, in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining
counts and a stipulated grant of probation, with conditions that included
serving 270 days in county jail.
On September 10, 2010, the trial court granted
defendant 36 months of supervised probation, with conditions that included
serving 270 days in county jail, with actual presentence credits of 71 days,
plus conduct credits under section 4019.
On July 18, 2012, the probation department filed a petition to revoke
defendant’s probation on the grounds that (1) defendant had been arrested on July 16, 2012, for receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd.
(a)), and (2) that defendant had moved from his place of residence without
notifying his probation officer.
On July 26, 2012, defendant admitted the
second alleged probation violation, that he had moved from his place of
residence without notifying his probation officer of his current address. The court reinstated probation with
conditions that included serving 365 days in county jail, with credit for 147
actual days, plus conduct credits under section 4019.
Defendant
filed a timely notice of appeal “after a contested violation of
probation.†Defendant requested a
certificate of probable cause, which the court denied. Thereafter, appellate counsel filed an
amended notice of appeal challenging “the sentence or other matters occurring
after the plea.â€
Case FVI1201823
On
July 17, 2012, a complaint charged defendant with vandalism causing over $400
in damages under section 594, subdivision (b)(1) (count 2), and receiving stolen
property not exceeding $950, a misdemeanor, under section 496, subdivision (a)
(count 5).
On
July 26, 2012, defendant entered into a plea agreement where he pled guilty to
count 2, vandalism causing over $400 in damages, and admitted violating his probation
in case No. FBI1000934, in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining
count. Under the terms of the plea
agreement, defendant was sentenced to 36 months of supervised probation, with
conditions that included serving 24 days in county jail, with presentence
credits of 12 actual days, plus conduct credits under section 4019. On August 23,
2012,
the court awarded victim restitution in the stipulated amount of
$499.25 to the victim in count 2.
Defendant
filed a timely notice of appeal
challenging “the validity of the plea.â€
He also requested a certificate of probable cause, which the court
denied. Thereafter, appellate counsel
filed an amended notice of appeal challenging “the sentence or other matters
occurring after the plea.â€
On
October 26, 2012, we ordered the appeals in these two cases consolidated under
case No. E056921.
In
both cases, defendant stipulated that there was a factual basis for his plea
based on the police reports and the complaint.
In
case No. FVI1000934, according to the complaint, between January 19 through
February 28, 2010, defendant stalked M.F.
In
case No. FVI1201823, according to the complaint, on or about July 15, 2012,
defendant vandalized property, causing over $400 in damages, belonging to Juice
It Up.
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 in both
cases, but he has not done so. 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.
The
judgments are affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
CODRINGTON
J.
name="_ftn1" title=""> [1] All
further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
