P. v. Hale
Filed 9/12/08 P. v. Hale CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Shasta)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DALE RICHARD HALE, Defendant and Appellant. | C057617 (Super. Ct. Nos. 06F10530, 06F3962) |
On March 10, 2006, defendant Dale Richard Hale was seen taking three bicycle tire repair kits from a store in the City of Shasta Lake and concealing them in his jacket. He was detained by store security and, when confronted by a Shasta County Sheriffs deputy, said, I dont know why I did it.
On November 5, 2006, a surveillance video in another City of Shasta Lake store recorded defendant taking medication, breath spray, and a lighter. Sheriffs deputies eventually found defendant hiding in a pile of clothes at his residence, still in possession of the stolen lighter and breath spray. He admitted going into the store with the intent to steal medicine for his mouth.
Defendant pled guilty to petty theft with a prior theft conviction (Pen. Code, 666) pursuant to People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595 in case No. 06F3962, and in case No. 06F10530 he pled guilty to second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, 459) and admitted an out-on-bail allegation (Pen. Code, 12022.1).
Defendant subsequently moved to withdraw his pleas, claiming his previous counsel, who had since died, guaranteed he would be placed in a drug treatment program instead of prison if he accepted the prosecutions offer and pled guilty. Further, defendant claimed counsel had informed him that if he did not plead guilty, he would be ineligible for the drug treatment program. The court denied the motion, impliedly finding the claims lacked credibility and, in any event, defendant had an opportunity to apply for the Addicted Offender Program but did not attend the necessary court hearing.
The court sentenced defendant to a four-year term in state prison, imposed various fines and fees, and awarded eight days credit (six actual and two conduct) in case No. 06F3962 and five days actual conduct credit in case No. 06F10530. The court subsequently amended the award of credits to seven days credit (five actual and two custody) in case No. 06F10530 and prepared an amended abstract of judgment to reflect the modification.
Having failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, defendant appeals.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the 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 defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no other arguable error in favor of defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
RAYE , Acting P.J.
We concur:
MORRISON , J.
HULL, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
